[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]
STATEMENTS ON THE NOMINATIONS OF SAMUEL W. BROWN AND DEREK SHEARER
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for being
so kind as to yield me this time. I know he has a couple other Senators
requesting time, and they will be here momentarily.
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Samuel W. Brown to
be Ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Along with the nomination of Derek Shearer to be Ambassador to
Finland--another nomination we are considering today--the nomination of
Mr. Brown by the Clinton administration is another example of a bad
nomination. Friend and foe alike in the world must be wondering where
the President gets his nominees.
The CSCE is an important negotiating body. The CSCE has become even
more important over the past few years, because it is the caretaker of
the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, completed in 1990.
The treaty limits Soviet military activity in Europe.
Russia desires to renegotiate the treaty, so it can send troops into
former Soviet Republics, and reextend its sphere of influence.
The American Ambassador to the CSCE should be able to withstand the
pressure from the Russians to renegotiate the conventional arms treaty.
The U.S. representative must be sure in America's rightness, and firm
in his or her resolve to pursue American interests. Europe is the
perpetual powderkeg--the American CSCE Ambassador needs experience and
wisdom.
Mr. Brown is not that person. Mr. Brown, a former anti-war protestor,
does not believe in America's rightness. Also, he does not have one
qualification that could serve him in the sensitive post of CSCE
Ambassador. Mr. Brown suffers from the same disease as many other
Clinton nominees, what I call AANQ disease--anti-American and no
qualifications disease.
Mr. Brown campaigned vigorously against the Vietnam war. But he did
more than just march. At a welcoming reception for the U.N. delegation
from Communist Vietnam in September 1977, Mr. Brown said he was
``deeply moved'' by the anti-American speeches made by the Communist
Vietnamese. Several Senators the day after the reception spoke on this
floor against the behavior of these anti-American Americans.
Mr. Brown was head of the ACTION/Peace Corps agency when he attended
this reception. The agency under Mr. Brown's leadership was
investigated by the House Appropriations Committee. The investigation
found an agency in shambles. The committee found improper travel
expenses, misuse of personnel and a faulty accounting system. Observers
of Mr. Brown's performance during that time said he was in over his
head.
It is impossible to see what Mr. Brown would bring to such an
important job. Other countries' delegations to the CSCE have always
been headed up by experienced diplomats. The United States has in the
recent past been represented by very qualified people at the CSCE,
including the last Ambassador. Ambassador John Kornblum, who had been
the State Department's head of central European affairs and deputy
representative to NATO.
Mr. Brown has no experience in major areas he will deal with,
including issues like arms control, conflict prevention, regional
security, and nonproliferation. Mr. Brown has no expertise in the
languages, cultures, and history of the former Soviet States. Mr. Brown
has never supervised U.S. military personnel, and has no real foreign
language skills.
Why has Mr. Brown been nominated? He is a friend of the President.
Like I have said many times before, friendship with a high official--
even the President himself--is not enough to qualify someone for
office.
Foreign policy does matter, Mr. President. This is more and more
true, as Americans become more and more uneasy about how this
administration is running the ship of state. This is becoming more and
more true, as potential enemies around the world, seeing America's back
turned, might become emboldened.
The future is chaos if we do not have vigilant watchmen abroad. Mr.
Brown, so wrong and so unqualified in the past, is not the man to stand
guard. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the nomination of Dr. Derek
Shearer to be Ambassador to Finland.
Mr. President, to send Dr. Shearer to Helsinki would be a grave
mistake. Just as Finland is striving to become part of capitalist
Europe, this administration has nominated a man who has strongly
embraced socialism. This administration, with the nomination of Dr.
Shearer, continues putting this country's worst foot forward in the
world, with confused policies and unqualified nominees.
An Ambassador should at the very least believe in his or her
country's ideals and defend its interests. In shaky areas of the world,
an ambassador needs courageous conviction to sway friends, warn
enemies, and engage in the delicate balancing act of great power
diplomacy.
Finland is historically one of those shaky areas. Russian
ultranationalists like Vladimir Zhironovsky beat the drums for
annexation of Finland. The Russian Government in general continues to
pull Finland into Russia's sphere of influence.
Dr. Shearer throughout his professional life has been against his
country's ideals and interests. Dr. Shearer also is not qualified to
handle such a sensitive diplomatic post. Being a nice guy or being the
brother-in-law of the Deputy Secretary of State are not ample
qualifications for an ambassador.
Dr. Shearer has extensively written in support of statist and
Socialist ideas. He has written that the American capitalist system has
insurmountable problems and, I quote, ``the way the economy is governed
and the way things are produced will have to be changed.'' Dr. Shearer
called for the Government to take over private corporations.
This sounds like socialism to me, but Dr. Shearer--to hide his
purpose--calls it something else. Dr. Shearer was quoted in a 1979
article in the magazine In These Times as saying:
Socialism has a bad name in America and no amount of
wishful thinking on the part of the Left is going to change
that in our lifetimes* * *. The words ``economic democracy''
are an adequate and effective replacement.
There are worse quotes than the one I just mentioned. In hearings
before the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Shearer denied that he had
ever espoused Socialist ideas, or that he was misquoted, or that he has
changed his mind. Dr. Shearer's writings and quotes, though, are a
matter of public record. Never have I seen such a complete confirmation
conversion. Dr. Shearer has become a capitalist overnight.
Dr. Shearer's associations leave many doubts as to whether he could
handle the sensitive information that an Ambassador to Finland would
have to deal with. Do not forget that the Ambassador also oversees the
CIA station in Finland.
Dr. Shearer was an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy
Studies, a hard-left group that has been a sugardaddy for socialism in
this country for many years. Also, Dr. Shearer was associated with the
campaign for economic democracy, which had a goal of radical
redistribution of wealth. Members of the CED, including Dr. Shearer,
were appointed to the Santa Monica, CA, city planning board by Dr.
Shearer's wife, who had been elected mayor. The planning board
instituted destructive rent-control measures that crippled Santa
Monica's economy and earned the city the name, ``The People's Republic
of Santa Monica.'' Dr. Shearer was eventually kicked off the
commission. Dr. Shearer has shown himself to be not just a writer in
support of anticapitalist ideas, but a doer of anticapitalist ideas.
If Dr. Shearer's ideas are not enough to disqualify him, then the
simple fact that he has no diplomatic experience and no expertise on
Finland should be more than plenty to pull his nomination.
If Dr. Shearer is confirmed, he may be an embarrassment to America in
Helsinki, and possibly a danger to American interests.
This administration has shown a real lack of foresight and wisdom in
its choices of foreign policy nominees. The President does not seem to
understand that foreign policy positions are not just jobs for friends,
but are important to America's security and predominance in the world.
I hope my colleagues vote against Dr. Shearer's nomination.
Mr. President, I will try to sum up my concerns.
Mr. President, I do think that the President of the United States
should be given the benefit of the doubt in the selection of his
nominees to be Ambassadors, for instance, to Finland or to the CSCE,
but in both of these cases it is a continuation of a pattern, in my
opinion, of selecting nominees that are not qualified for the specific
positions that they have been nominated to or have a long history of
taking positions and making statements that are not in America's best
interests. And these are two very good examples. In other
circumstances, I would say let them go. But in these two cases, you
have nominees who have specifically raised questions.
For instance, in the case of Dr. Shearer, he is replacing a man who
has been in this position for quite some time, highly qualified, has
been doing a very good job, but he was eased out of that position. And
now we have a nominee coming in who has no experience as an Ambassador,
has no particular relationship with Finland, and has taken very
strongly embraced and stated positions of socialism. The nomination
here is putting, I think, the country's worst foot forward, both in
terms of confused policies and unqualified nominees. Finland has
historically been a country that has been very shaky. It is right there
next to Russia. Russia has beat the drums of annexation in the past.
And yet we have a man in Dr. Shearer who throughout his professional
life has been against some of the ideals and interests of capitalism
America has espoused. Being the brother-in-law of the Deputy Secretary
of State is not qualification for this kind of position.
Dr. Shearer has extensively written in support of statist and
Socialist ideas. He has written that the American capitalist system has
insurmountable problems and ``the way the economy is governed and the
way things are produced will have to be changed,'' talking about our
country, America.
At a time when Finland is reaching out to join capitalist Europe, we
have a nominee here who has written extensively against the very sort
of things that the United States has been encouraging and Europe has
been moving toward.
Dr. Shearer has been associated with a number of hard-left groups
that have been advocating socialism over the years. He has been
associated with the campaign for economic democracy, which had a goal
of radical redistribution of wealth. Members of CED, including Dr.
Shearer, were appointed at one point to the Santa Monica, CA, city
planning board and, because of rent control measures and other
positions they took, it crippled Santa Monica's economy, and he wound
up being kicked off the commission, basically.
So I just think that this nominee is not qualified and will cause
confused signals and problems in that position as Ambassador to
Finland.
Also, in the case of Sam Brown, here is a person who has been an
antiwar demonstrator during the Vietnam war era. When he served at the
ACTION Agency, there were certain questions raised about how he ran the
Agency. His leadership there was in question. There were improper
travel expenses, misuse of personnel, and a faulty accounting system.
So in his case where he has had a Government position, problems
developed. And beyond that, he has no experience in this particular
area. This is where you should have very experienced diplomats. The
last Ambassador, John Kornblum, had been the State Department's head of
Central European Affairs and Deputy Representative to NATO. Mr. Brown
just does not have that kind of experience, and the experience that he
has had was at the ACTION Agency. The positions he has taken on
numerous foreign policy matters, in my opinion, just flatly disqualify
him to be in this very critical position at a critical time in working
with the Conference of Security and Cooperation in Europe. So I hope my
colleagues will reject both of these nominees.
I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I believe I have
10 minutes reserved on the nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware of that order.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, I had been advised that I did have 10 minutes
reserved on the nomination. That is incorrect?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that that was
not part of the consent agreement.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield 5 minutes to the
Senator at this time.
Mr. SPECTER. I will take it. I thought I had 10 minutes, but I thank
the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from Pennsylvanaia
[Mr. Specter], is recognized for 5 minutes.
Statement on the Nomination of Samuel W. Brown, Jr.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to oppose the
nomination of Mr. Samuel W. Brown, Jr., and not to oppose the
nomination of Mr. Derek Shearer.
I believe that the broadest latitude ought to be allowed the
President in his selection of Ambassadors. While there has been
considerable opposition to Mr. Derek Shearer, it is my view that his
basic qualifications, and the nature of his appointment as Ambassador
to Finland, are sufficient so as not to bring my opposition to his
nomination.
With respect to Samuel W. Brown, it is my conclusion that the
position of Ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation is
so important that it requires someone with considerably more background
and expertise in dealing with the very important issues of security,
considering the matters involving the Russians as a military force, and
concerning the issues of the conflict in Bosnia, and the unrest in the
states of the former Yugoslavia.
As I have reviewed the record on Mr. Brown, I know of the committee
report on these questions:
(A) What practical experience do you have in working in the
former Soviet Union?
(B) What educational background do you have on the former
Soviet Union?
The answer to both (A) and (B): ``I have no direct experience.''
Then there were the questions:
(A) What practical experience have you had working in the
former Yugoslavia?
(B) What educational background do you have concerning the
former Yugoslavia?
Answer to (A):
I have no direct experience in the former Yugoslavia.
However, over the past 25 years, I have been to many other
parts of the world where deep-seated disputes have been
present. I believe that my broad experience with conflict
resolution will serve me well in this area.
I read those two answers because of the limitation of time. My own
reading of his background and record suggest to me that Mr. Brown does
not have the kind of experience necessary for this job.
I do not wish to belabor a number of statements which have already
been made about his questionable stewardship at the ACTION group, or of
his conduct, comments, and background in the Vietnam war. All of this
suggests to me that we need someone of substantially greater stature.
I compliment my colleague, Senator Hank Brown, for his leadership on
the issue. When he consulted with me last week, I suggested that we
write to the President and ask him to reconsider Mr. Brown's
nomination, perhaps to find a different job for Mr. Brown, or perhaps
to send supplementary information which might persuade me and others
that Mr. Brown has the qualifications to be the Ambassador to this
important post. That has not happened.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as a matter of courtesy to the ranking
minority member of our committee, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator
from North Carolina.
Statement on the Nomination of Derek Shearer
Mr. HELMS. I thank the chairman. I accept on the condition that if he
has a Senator on his side desiring time, I will yield the floor. I
thank my friend and my chairman.
Several of us are deeply concerned about the nomination of Derek
Shearer to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Finland. Mr. Shearer has a lot
going for him: He is a very bright man; he is the brother in law of
Strobe Talbott; and he knows a fellow named Bill Clinton. However,
Derek Shearer is simply not the man for the job in Helsinki. I oppose
this nomination for reasons similar to my opposition to Sam Brown.
Like Sam Brown Mr. Shearer has been an advocate for unconventional--
to put it mildly--and often rather radical positions. They are cut from
the same bolt of cloth.
Mr. Shearer has undergone in recent months what we call around this
place a ``confirmation conversion''. He has reversed himself from
previously long-held positions, and he now says that he no longer
believes the socialist political philosophy that he once so fervently
and feverishly pursued. He says he no longer believes that the U.S.
Government should own a 10 to 20 percent interest in all major U.S.
industries dominated by a few companies. He says he no longer believes
we can learn from the ``spirit of cooperativeness and well-being that
pervades Chinese and Cuban life.''
This Ambassador-to-be once declared that--
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. The logical vehicle for that should be the
Government.
But do you know what? He says now that he does not see any wisdom in
such governmental intervention.
Mr. Shearer's past incredulous statements also include scathing
denunciations of the U.S. military. As the editor of a book
commissioned by the Institute for Policy Studies back in 1970 called
``The Pentagon Watchers,'' Mr. Shearer went to extraordinary lengths to
criticize the U.S. defense capability. In a section of the book
entitled ``Fighting Anti-Communism,'' Mr. Shearer wrote against what he
called the Pentagon's cold war propaganda.
He went on to say that ``those who wish to dismantle the military-
industrial complex, and radically alter America's foreign policy, are
finding it necessary to counter the Pentagon's public relations machine
with their own education program.''
He explained that such educational activities are just beginning and
that ``they must be greatly expanded and multiplied if the anti-
Communist reflex and belief that the way to national security lies in
more military spending are to be seriously challenged.''
I wonder what Mr. Shearer thought about the reports of Communist
atrocities, including Stalin's relentless purges and the deliberate
starvation of millions and millions of Ukrainian farmers, to name just
a couple of incidents. I wonder if he thought back then that this was
just propaganda from the Pentagon.
Mr. Shearer told the Foreign Relations Committee and the media that
he is now a changed man; he does not believe all of that anymore. I
believe in miracles, but it may be asking just a little bit too much
even to hope that Mr. Shearer now sees the error in his previous
beliefs and statements. He made them too often and too consistently
over a period of years to be convincing when he now declares, as a
nominee, that he has abandoned them.
He told the Foreign Relations Committee ``to set the record straight,
I have not advocated socialism. I am not a Socialist.''
He may not be a Socialist now. That cannot be determined by me. But
when he says, ``I have not advocated socialism,'' using the past tense,
he is all wet, because he did and it is a matter of record.
In his article in the magazine In These Times in 1978, Mr. Shearer
wrote, ``Socialism has a bad name in America and no amount of wishful
thinking on the part of the left is going to change that in our
lifetimes * * * the words `Economic Democracy' are an adequate and
effective replacement.'' He said, in other words, do not use the word
``socialism'' anymore; always talk about ``economic democracy.''
I have a cassette tape of Mr. Shearer speaking at a little conference
3 years later when he declared very clearly
I particularly like the phrase economic democracy * * *
because it has been referred to as the great euphemism * * *
While we can't use the ``S'' word [meaning socialism] too
effectively in American politics, we have found in the
greatest tradition of American advertising the word
``economic democracy'' sells. You can take it door-to-door
like Fuller Brushes, and the doors will not be slammed in
your face.
It seems to me that it is clear in his lexicon that economic
democracy is just another name for the word socialism, and that Mr.
Shearer was in fact advocating socialism under the banner of the words
``economic democracy.'' He said so himself, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Shearer has suffered a convenient loss of memory regarding his
former affiliation with the Institute for Policy Studies. It is our
duty, as Members of the Senate, to ensure the integrity of the
nomination process, and I think this is what we have been trying to do
here this morning. We need openness and honesty in response to
questions asked by the Senate and/or individual Members of the Senate.
I am afraid we have not been getting the full picture from Mr. Shearer,
and that is an understatement.
The impact of Mr. Shearer's nomination is much broader than just an
ambassadorship to one country alone. A vote for Mr. Shearer sends a
chilling message to the Finns who resisted the Soviet Union valiantly
in the winter war, and also to the Baltic nations who certainly
experienced firsthand the true nature of communism. Mr. Shearer's
nomination comes at a time when Finland and the Baltic nations are
moving away from socialism and emphasizing a free-market, nongovernment
interventionist approach.
Mr. President, Mr. Shearer, who once pushed the soft line on the
Soviet Union by calling the United States ``imperialists'' for fighting
communism, and the same Mr. Shearer, who was a part of the ``blame
America first crowd'' is not the right person for an assignment in the
Soviet Union's former sphere of influence.
Mr. President, I sincerely believe that the President has the right
to appoint whom he sees fit, but, on the other hand, the Senate's
obligation is to measure the fitness of the individual nominated to
serve in a position of such significance.
Therefore, I have to oppose Mr. Shearer because I believe that he has
been less than candid with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of
which I am ranking member, and the distinguished Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. Pell], is the chairman.
Mr. Shearer has retracted a number of his previous statements, but I
do not believe the test for a good ambassador is to measure how much of
his past he can now deny. What counts is how or if his life experiences
have prepared him or her for service to his country.
On this nomination I shall vote ``no''.
I thank the Chair for yielding to me, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina yields back
his time.
The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair will state that time is controlled.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee if he will yield me 10 minutes.
Mr. PELL. That is more than I have. I yield the Senator the remainder
of my time.
Statement on the Nomination of Sam W. Brown, Jr.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Senator. I do not think I will take that
long.
Mr. President I rise today to once again speak in favor of Sam
Brown's nomination as U.S. Ambassador to CSCE.
I want to compliment the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee for bringing it here to the floor and insisting
that we have a vote on it. I also compliment his strong defense or his
strong offense on behalf of this nomination.
Senator Pell has been a constant leader in CSCE. He was the father
from the Senate side of the creation of the Helsinki Commission in the
Congress of the United States, which I am very, very honored to chair.
He understands better than anybody the importance of having an
Ambassador there and he understands the need and the qualifications for
such an Ambassador. So I think that ought to be enough right there;
that this debate ought to wash away.
But, unfortunately, we have others who feel differently. I have
listened to the arguments which my colleague, Senator Brown, the
distinguished Senator from Colorado, and others on the Republican side
of the aisle have listed as reasons why Sam Brown should not be
confirmed.
Mr. President, I find their allegations to be unsubstantiated and
taken out of context. In fact, I am at a loss to find a reasonable
explanation for their continued opposition to Mr. Brown's nomination to
be Ambassador to the CSCE.
Senator Simon, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Pell are uniquely
qualified to speak in detail to concerns about Mr. Brown's alleged
mismanagement of ACTION and his anti-Vietnam war position during the
1970's. I have reviewed the facts surrounding these allegations and
again find that the opposition's claims are taken out of context and do
not accurately reflect the real situation or the views of Mr. Brown as
well as his testimony that has been given to the committee.
With respect to my own view about Mr. Brown's antiwar position during
Vietnam, I can only ask how long are we going to continue to fight that
tragic war? Loyal, courageous Americans held passionately felt views on
both sides of that debate. When are we going to move beyond judgment of
those whom we disagreed with one way or the other several decades ago?
But let us turn now to the concerns being raised by Mr. Brown's lack
of experience in CSCE and, in particular, the fact that he has never
served in the military.
Oh, my goodness sakes. Imagine that, someone who has never served in
the military nominated to be an Ambassador.
Mr. Brown's critics believe that because the CSCE has jurisdiction
over the CFE Treaty--a treaty which Russia wants to renegotiate,
according to their public statements--the United States must,
therefore, appoint someone with diplomatic or arms control experience
to ensure that the U.S. interests are properly represented.
Well, to begin with, Mr. President, anybody who is familiar with the
daily functioning of the U.S. CSCE delegation in Vienna knows that the
security dimension of the CSCE negotiations are handled by a large and
competent team of Government experts in the military field. I have been
there. I have seen them. I have talked to them. I have been briefed by
them time and time again. Indeed, they do a wonderful job. The
Ambassador does not sit down on a daily basis and do those kind of
negotiations.
Furthermore, not only does any Ambassador receive extensive
negotiating instructions--which he does--coordinated at high levels
among the military agencies--which he does--and the State Department
here in Washington, DC, but he or she draws on the expertise from the
seasoned diplomats and military officers who staff the U.S. delegation,
as has been the case for the last two decades or last 12 years.
Those who allege that Mr. Brown could negotiate alone to undermine
the U.S. interests display a willful misunderstanding of how our
Government operates and how those negotiations have operated and will
continue to operate.
I would like to point out that the previous U.S. Ambassador to the
CSCE, the highly capable John Kornblum, delegated many day-to-day
negotiations to these same subordinates. This is standard practice. The
role of the Ambassador is to provide leadership--that is what he is
supposed to do--and to communicate the big picture to Washington, DC.
I would also note that three of the CSCE's most able Ambassadors--
Ambassador Kampelman, Ambassador Zimmermann, and Ambassador Kornblum--
were never in military service.
Some of my colleagues have also cited a quote from an article in a
1977 Penthouse magazine in which Mr. Brown is alleged to express
disdain for intelligence agencies. Mr. Brown has responded to this
allegation in a letter to me dated May 11, 1994, which I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Berkeley, CA,
May 13, 1994.
Senator Dennis DeConcini,
Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator DeConcini: I am happy to respond to you about
the quotation attributed to me in the Penthouse Magazine from
December, 1977 provided by minority members of the Foreign
Relations Committee.
On the face of it, this is a pretty stupid thing for me to
have said--if I was quoted accurately. The break in
continuity--the fact that the response does not seem to
``track''--suggests to me that there is something left out of
the quote. But, as it stands, it does not accurately reflect
my views now, nor my views then. Nonetheless, I have tried to
understand how I might have said anything even similar to
this. I hope some understanding of context will be helpful.
During my confirmation hearings in 1977 I was questioned
very closely, primarily by Senator Humphrey, about the Peace
Corps and its independence from the intelligence activities
of the country. I said I understood the legal obligation for
separation and would rigidly enforce this requirement. I had
been assured from Congressional sources that this separation
was being observed, nonetheless, the rumors persisted that
the CIA was somehow ``using'' the Peace Corps. It was very
important to be able to say to volunteers and to foreign
governments alike that I would be attentive to this and would
resist any breach of this wall. Consequently I regularly
pointed out that I had no contact with the CIA.
A second contextual issue is that the CIA had, shortly
before this period in the mid-70's, covertly funded domestic
and foreign student and intellectual organizations. There was
therefore great skepticism about any assurance that it was
not involved with the Peace Corps. The stronger my statements
the more credible was my assurance that the Peace Corps was
independent and free from involvement with the intelligence
agencies.
Finally, in the late '60's and early '70's the CIA had
apparently engaged in intelligence gathering focused on
domestic groups opposed to the war in Vietnam. This was the
subject of litigation at the time of the interview. Evidence
gathered in that case indicated I had been the object of CIA
surveillance in the 1960's when I was active in the anti-war
movement. Consequently, I had strong personal feelings about
the abuses of their authority.
None of this context can excuse the statement attributed to
me, which does not reflect my views on the legitimate
intelligence activities of the U.S. government. U.S. security
demands that we have current and accurate information on
which to base policy decisions. This requires gathering
information from covert as well as public sources, through
technology as well as from people. It requires that the
information received, from whatever source, be integrated
fully with the policy-making process which it is designed to
serve and that its sources be carefully protected.
My views about America are more accurately summarized later
in the same interview when I said, ``I really think America
is a terrific place. . . . I think people are prepared to
give up a lot, to sacrifice, to quit consuming so
destructively, for a common purpose . . . there are an
incredible number of people ready to listen to sensible
things and to relate to each other in some warm, decent,
giving way.'' It is that vision and those values which I
bring to this position.
Sincerely,
Sam W. Brown, Jr.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. Brown explains in this letter that if, in fact,
the Penthouse quote is accurate, it does not accurately reflect his
view now or even then. He stresses:
U.S. security demands that we have current and accurate
information on which to base policy decisions. This requires
gathering information from covert as well as public sources.
Well, to go on with this for just a moment, Mr. President, the reason
Mr. Brown was upset about it was because he was possibly a target of
our own Government and he may have been under surveillance. And I would
be upset, too, if that had happened to me, and I might have said
something that maybe I do not feel today.
But what surveillance rights did our Government have, particularly
the CIA, if, in fact, they had a citizen in this country under
surveillance? That is against the law if they were doing it, and there
was some evidence to that extent.
Mr. President, in conversations with Sam Brown, it is clear to me
that he fully recognizes the necessity of intelligence agencies. But he
also recognizes the imperative of ensuring that these operate firmly
within the parameters of the legal and moral structure of a democratic
state. I certainly think that it is an important message for the newly
independent countries as they continue their transition from communism
to democracy. I trust no one in this Chamber would disagree.
Finally, my colleague, Senator Brown, is fond of using charts. He has
used a number of them in his effort to block this nomination.
I will also use one to illustrate that there are many, many
outstanding CSCE champions who believe that Sam Brown will do a fine
job as CSCE Ambassador and should be confirmed.
I ask unanimous consent to have letters on this subject printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington, DC,
April 14, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Claiborne: It has come to my attention that Sam Brown
has been nominated to be Head of Delegation to the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe with the rank of
Ambassador. When I heard this I was very pleased. I have
known Sam for more than twenty-five years and he would serve
his country well in this post.
My acquaintance with him began in a most unusual way. When
I was Secretary of Defense he became a friend of my children
and eventually of mine. This was during the Vietnam War.
Unlike some critics of the war who tried to convince others
of the rightness of their position by shouting down their
opponents, I found Sam to be thoughtful, balanced and deeply
concerned about the consequences of the war--both strategic
and moral. I always found him to be motivated by an abiding
concern for our country and its best interests. While we
disagreed, we grew to respect each other. After that I saw
him occasionally at the Aspen Institute or at meetings of a
foundation board on which we both sat. After the publication
of the so-called Pentagon Papers we once again discussed the
war and again I found him well-informed, thoughtful and
serious. During his years at ACTION--and since--we have kept
in touch.
I tell you this because it has also come to my attention
that some members of the Senate have questioned Sam's role
and motivation during the years of the Vietnam War and
afterwards. I know him to be a patriotic and thoughtful
person and any allegation to the contrary is totally
baseless. Moreover, I know that he thinks carefully and well
about the long-term interests of the country. He will do an
admirable job in any position requiring careful analysis of
difficult situations, strong interpersonal skills and real
leadership ability. This post is particularly appropriate
given Sam's long-standing commitment to the expansion of
human rights. I hope that this appointment can go forward
quickly so that our country can have the benefit of Sam's
skills in this job for which he is so well suited.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Robert S. McNamara.
____
Celeste & Sabety Ltd.,
May 9, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: 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
pragmatic 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 U.S.
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.
____
National Security Council,
Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
Dear Senator Helms: I am addressing this letter to you on
behalf of Sam Brown, who has been nominated to the position
of United States Ambassador to the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). I served as Chairman of the
United States delegations to the CSCE's Ottawa Human Rights
Meeting in 1985 and the Oslo Democracy Meeting in 1991. I
also followed CSCE events closely as Assistant Secretary of
State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and was
closely involved in the negotiation of the 1989 document
which concluded the Vienna CSCE meeting.
It is in light of such past experience that I have had a
number of meetings with Mr. Sam Brown to discuss the current
state of CSCE affairs. He struck me as intelligent,
competent, and energetic. He has succeeded in mastering the
subject matter and is clearly committed to the task of
representing the United States effectively in the CSCE
setting. He is, in my view, excellently qualified to perform
the task of U.S. Ambassador to CSCE.
I am told that questions have been raised about Mr. Brown's
suitability in light of his activities as an opponent of the
war in Vietnam twenty-five years ago. It can reasonably be
said that Mr. Brown's early views on Vietnam have no
relevance to his suitability for the CSCE ambassadorship
today. Nevertheless, as I held sharply differing views from
those which Sam Brown espoused twenty-five years ago and
remembering the publicity which surrounded him then,
questions about the past did cross my mind when I heard of
his nomination.
It was, therefore, not surprising that at our very first
meeting the issue of Sam Brown's views during the Vietnam era
did come up. He spoke candidly about them and his fundamental
change of political outlook in the years that followed. On
the basis of my detailed discussions with him, I am
completely satisfied that today Sam Brown's political outlook
reflects the American mainstream, views which we tend to
label `'centrist.''
It is my sincere hope that Sam Brown will be judged by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the United States
Senate on the basis of what he stands for in 1994 rather than
what he stood for many years ago. On that basis, I do hope
his nomination will be confirmed.
Sincerely,
Richard Schifter,
Special Assistant to the President
and Counselor.
____
April 13, 1994.
Senators Claiborne Pell and Jesse Helms,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Pell and Helms: As a former Chief of
Delegation to a major CSCE Review Meeting (the 1986-89 Vienna
Follow-Up Meeting of the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe), I have a strong interest in the
future of the CSCE process and in an effective and committed
U.S. participation in it.
It's this interest which compels me to write you on behalf
of Sam Brown, who has appeared before the Committee as the
Clinton administration's nominee for U.S. Representative to
the CSCE in Vienna. American participation in CSCE has been
blessed with many talented representatives, the most recent
of whom is Ambassador John Kornblum, our most recent
representative in Vienna. I believe that Sam Brown will be in
this distinguished tradition. During our several in-depth
talks since his nomination, he has impressed us with his
mastery of the complexities of the issues; his commitment to
human rights to military security, and to 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.
I served 33 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, and have
always felt that our diplomacy was enriched by qualified
ambassadorial appointments from the private sector. From my
admittedly recent acquaintance with Sam Brown, I strongly
believe he meets the standard of excellence on which we
should insist for our diplomats. I hope the committee will do
all in its power to ensure his confirmation by the Senate.
Sincerely,
Warren Zimmermann.
____
Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson,
Washington, DC, April 21, 1994.
Senator Claiborne Pell,
Chairman, Committee of Foreign Relations
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that you and the
members of your committee are now considering the nomination
of Mr. Samuel W. Brown, Jr. to serve as Head of Delegation to
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE),
with the rank of Ambassador.
I write to endorse that nomination and to urge that your
committee act favorably and expeditiously on it. CSCE has a
vital role to play in restoring and strengthening confidence
within Europe in these days of uncertainty and danger on that
continent. That development requires leadership on the part
of the United States and I am persuaded that Mr. Brown has
the energy, commitment and understanding to help our country
provide that leadership.
I did not know Mr. Brown until a few months ago when he
came to my office to introduce himself and discuss my views
as to his anticipated responsibilities. I had heard his name
mentioned during the 1960s in ways that impressed me
unfavorably. It was, therefore, refreshing for me to discuss
my personal reactions with him fully and frankly when we met.
I have looked upon the radicalism of some youth in the 1960s
as destructive to our society and I considered leaders of the
radical youth movement of the time to be immature,
irresponsible and shortsighted.
When we talked, I learned from Mr. Brown that he had come
to conclusions similar to my own during the late 60s and
early 70s and had openly and publicly acknowledged a change
of direction in his beliefs about the direction American
foreign policy should take. I considered that change to be to
Mr. Brown's credit and was pleased to learn more from him
about his career and his dedication to the public interest.
You are aware of my own intense interest in CSCE beginning
with 1980 when you and I and many of your colleagues saw the
opportunity to undermine the influence of Soviet
totalitarianism in Europe using the Helsinki process as a
means to accomplish that end. We were successful in Madrid
under Presidents Carter and Reagan. I returned to the process
for short periods of time on five different occasions under
President Bush. The CSCE Copenhagen, Geneva and Moscow
meetings, where I served as the American Head of Delegation,
served to end Soviet influence once and for all and, for the
first time, specified in detail that European stability and
security depended upon political democracy and its attendant
freedoms. I considered in highly regrettable that our country
did not continue to provide the essential leadership
necessary for Europe and the Helsinki process to withstand
the threat to peace and security that stemmed from the
breakup of Yugoslavia. 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 the abilities to do that.
I do hope this letter is helpful to you.
My warmest best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
Max M. Kampelman.
____
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 Max Kampelman.
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.--
Ambassador Warren Zimmermann.
He has succeeded in mastering the subject matter and is
clearly committed to the task of representing the United
States effectively in the CSCE setting. He is, in my view,
excellently qualified to perform the task of U.S. Ambassador
to CSCE.--Ambassador Richard Schifter.
He not only has a genuine commitment to maintaining human
rights as the cornerstone of the CSCE process but possesses
the energy and instinctive ability to build consensus for
U.S. policy positions.--Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Co-
Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, included in this list are people such
as Steny Hoyer, the Cochairman of the Helsinki Commission and a leader
in the House of Representatives; Robert McNamara; Ambassador Warren
Zimmermann; and Ambassador Kampelman. These statements speak for
themselves. They are in the Record as I have so asked, but I think this
is a testament and testimony, as well, that demonstrates that this man,
Sam Brown, is qualified and competent to serve as Ambassador.
I think it would be tragic to let a political difference of some time
ago be the cause for him not to be confirmed. I urge my colleagues to
vote first for cloture and then for approval and confirmation.
I thank the Chair.
statement on the nomination of derek shearer
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Derek Shearer to be Ambassador to Finland. Professor Shearer is a
distinguished teacher, scholar, and public servant. He is extremely
well-qualified for this position and I believe that he will be an
excellent addition to the diplomatic corps.
Professor Shearer is the founding director of the International and
Public Affairs Center at Occidental College, which supports faculty
research and organizes seminars, conferences, and lectures on
international and domestic issues. Professor Shearer also established
Occidental's excellent public policy program for undergraduate majors.
Professor Shearer has a detailed and sophisticated knowledge of
Finnish economics and politics. He has studied world politics--
particularly the United States-Finnish relationship--extensively. He
has won several prestigious awards, including a Guggenheim Fellowship,
a German Marshall Fund grant, and a United States-Japan Leadership
Fellowship.
Professor Shearer has served on two bipartisan foreign policy study
groups: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Economic
Strategy Institute. He has written on European and Asian affairs for
Foreign Policy magazine, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and
numerous other publications.
Professor Shearer also has extensive experience in government. In the
1970's, he served as an economic adviser to California Gov. Jerry
Brown. In 1978, President Carter appointed Professor Shearer to the
founding board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank.
In the 1980's, he served as a city planning commissioner in Santa
Monica, CA.
A number of distinguished Americans--including John Brooks Slaughter,
the president of Occidental College, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan,
and former Ambassador to Finland Rockwell Schnabel--have expressed
their support for this nomination in letters to the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I urge my colleagues to
consider these endorsements carefully and to join me in support of this
nomination.
statement on the nomination of sam brown
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are some cases in which a perception
is so strongly held that the facts have no effect or little effect in
changing it. That appears to be the situation we see today with charges
long refuted and long known to be without foundation raised again in
regard to this nominee.
I can speak with some knowledge in regard to the issues surrounding
Sam Brown's management of the ACTION agency in the late 1970's. As
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Select Education, I had the
responsibility to make sure we looked into concerns that had been
raised by a controversial House Appropriations Committee staff report.
I should point out, that staff report--often referred to as the Michel
report--was never an official finding of the Appropriations Committee,
but was simply printed, along with the agency's responses, in the
committee record.
The controversy began when Congressman Michel, a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, requested the committee's investigations
staff to look at the ACTION agency. The administration had signaled a
new direction, one in which they would be more actively seeking out
ways to accomplish their antipoverty mandates. This was controversial
with some House Members, but generally supported by proponents of the
programs. During the previous administrations, programs had lost their
edge. Leadership seemed lacking. VISTA volunteers were doing one-on-one
direct service rather than recruiting other volunteers and using their
resources for capacity building among grassroots organizations.
The clearest indication of the Appropriations Committee response to
their staff report was approval of a 20 percent increase in the
agency's budget for the following year. There was not only no slap on
the wrist for Director Sam Brown, there was explicit support for the
change in direction he was providing for the ACTION agency.
A similar show of support followed 7 days of hearings in our
authorizing committee. These hearings included sworn witnesses from the
agency and subpoenaed and sworn witnesses from around the country. One
hearing lasted 14 hours. At that hearing, agency compliance officers
and auditors, old hands at the agency and some admitting to their
conservative leanings, testified that the only wrongdoing they had
witnessed at the ACTION agency had been under previous, Republican,
administrations.
I asked the auditors, who were under oath, specific as well as open-
ended questions about fraud and illegal or unethical activities. I
suspected, but did not know in advance what the responses would be. But
the sworn testimony was clear. The Sam Brown administration may have
taken the programs in a new direction conservative members did not
approve, but it was done legally and ethically. And many of us felt the
changes--designed to make the programs more effective in combating
poverty--were long overdue.
It would be pointless to go through each and every one of the issues
raised in regard to the administration of the ACTION agency in the late
1970's and repeat the responses that have been given so often. A
specific answer to each of the charges is available and I will be happy
to share those responses with anyone who requests them. I do want to go
over some of them, however, that seem to be brought up more than
others.
VISTA National Grant Program
Information in the staff report led to charges of deliberate efforts
of the Agency Director to misdirect Federal funds into the hands of
friends and political cronies. The record revealed no such conspiracy.
The charge that a series of roundtable meetings brought friends of Sam
Brown to Washington to prearrange grants had no foundation in fact.
Meetings of national leaders in antipoverty efforts did occur as part
of an effort to develop strategies for more effectively utilizing
volunteers. Of 41 participants in the discussions, Sam Brown knew only
6 prior to the meetings. Thirteen national grants were ultimately
awarded. Only five went to people who had attended the Washington
sessions.
Lobbying Congress
A charge of prohibited lobbying was raised because one grantee was
the National Public Interest Research Group. After intense questioning,
again with witnesses under oath, the committee failed to find one
instance of this grantee or any other using ACTION funds to lobby a
Member of Congress. The statute specifically prohibits VISTA volunteers
from engaging in lobbying. One instance of possibly prohibited activity
involved a handful of volunteers under another grant. The volunteers
drove some senior citizens to the State capitol in Missouri. While this
was not technically lobbying, ACTION determined that it was to be
avoided and called a halt to it.
Inappropriate Training Materials
Staff investigators found at one session of the Midwest Academy use
of training material they said ``could be construed as inflammatory.''
The VISTA program ordered Midwest to discontinue the use of this
material for VISTA volunteers. ACTION had been unaware of the specific
material, but had provided specific training materials to make VISTA
volunteers aware of restricted activities. The overall quality of the
Midwest training sessions was recognized as good, even by the staff
investigators themselves. Their criticism of one piece of written
materials that could be misinterpreted by volunteers has been blown out
of proportion. Midwest was one of 742 sponsoring organizations and
grantees.
Increase in Schedule C appointments
Appropriate comparison to the previous administration--that is,
following the transition period--shows a reduction instead of an
increase in such appointments. There was a reduction of 69 noncareer
positions under Sam Brown, and all noncareer general schedule policy
positions were approved by the Office of Personnel Management.
Increse in Salary Over past Earnings
The agency was in full compliance with OPM policies for salary based
on knowledge, skills, and abilities rather than past earnings. They
were committed to improving opportunities and salaries for women--
particularly for those with strong skills shown in volunteer work--
minorities--who frequently had salaries lower than skills would
indicate--and people from low-paying professions--such as State
government and nonprofit organizations.
Volunteers Engaged in Prohibited Activities
All such activities--a total of 5 instances involving a total of 9
volunteers out of 4,300--except one--one volunteer delivery political
leaflets to a meeting--were found by the ACTION agency itself--not the
investigators--and stopped by the agency.
Travel to China and Cuba
Two career staff people who were traveling on their own time and
money--one to Cuba with a group organized by George Washington
University and composed entirely of Federal employees; one to China
with an international delegation--were offered a total of $200 toward
their travel costs if they would make a presentation to the agency
following their trips. No money was ever paid; the presentations were
made.
Attempt to Abolish Inspector General
This is simply not true. The office was placed into the Office of
Compliance. It maintained an entirely separate division. This was prior
to the passage of the Inspector and Auditor General Act of 1978--and
ACTION was not included in that Act. The placement of the IG office was
simply a management decision that in an agency the size of ACTION it
made no sense to have two monitoring and compliance offices. All
functions required by the IG Act were fully provided through the Office
of Compliance. The ACTION Inspector General continued to have
independent access to books and records and to report directly to the
Director, and so forth.
Contracting Practices
When the Carter administration took over, the agency had highly
criticized contracting procedures. This problem had been found long
before the Appropriations staff investigation. Strong corrective action
was being carried out. The record shows that in each instance where a
problem was raised to the Director, he corrected it immediately,
frequently the same day, and procedures were instituted to ensure it
would not occur again.
Mr. President, I would like to insert into the Record at this point
the ACTION agency's summary response to the staff investigation report.
If any of my colleagues wishes to read the entire report and the full
explanation and responses, I will be pleased to help make that
available.
Clearly, there were philosophical differences affecting the
administration of these programs under the Nixon/Ford administrations
and that of Sam Brown under President Carter. During Sam Brown's
administration of the ACTION agency, its programs were reinvigorated
and became once again the capacity building, effective anti-poverty
programs they were meant to be. It is undoubtedly partially a result of
that revitalization that the programs survived the onslaught of the
Reagan years, when the administration made strong efforts to abolish
them.
The VISTA program survives and thrives today under the Corporation
for National Service. Today's VISTA's owe a debt to Sam Brown and to
Margery Tabankin, his head of VISTA, and the many other talented and
dedicated people Sam Brown brought on board during the Carter years. He
had problems to clear up and it took him time to do it, as it does any
new agency head. I remain convinced that Sam Brown's years at the
ACTION agency should be counted as a strong plus in his record of
accomplishments.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
I. Introduction and Summary Response to the Investigation Report
A. Introduction
This document was prepared in response to a draft report
entitled ``A Report to the Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
House of Representatives on the Policies, Procedures, and
Practices of ACTION.''
ACTION, the federal volunteer agency, supports the work of
more than 280,000 Volunteers who help their communities and
the poor in all 50 states and in 63 countries overseas
through the Peace Corps. ACTION has a current annual budget
of 214 million dollars.
250,000 of ACTION's domestic volunteers are elderly and
work through ACTION's Retired Senior Citizen Volunteer
Program. Another 19,000 elderly low-income Americans
participate in the Senior Companion Program and Foster
Grandparent Program. There are more than 4300 VISTA
Volunteers working through 730 sponsoring organizations and
12 National Grantees who reach approximately one out of every
twenty poor people in the United States. Over 5700 of
ACTION's volunteers are members of the Peace Corps.
B. Summary Response to the Investigation Report
Background: In March of 1978, Congressman Robert H. Michel
asked Congressman Daniel J. Flood, Chairman of the Labor-HEW
Appropriations Subcommittee, to request Congressman George H.
Mahon, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, to
order a review by the Committee investigative staff of the
policies, practices, and procedures of ACTION Agency. The
investigative staff focused its review of the Agency
procedures in the following areas:
(1) Personnel practices;
(2) Reorganization;
(3) VISTA National Grants;
(4) Procurement;
(5) Financial Management;
(6) Role of Inspector General.
The Committee report contained no findings of ethical
violations, no fraudulent use of funds, or other illegal
activity by Agency staff. This section presents the summary
response to the investigation report. Sections II through VII
follow the format of the investigation report and present the
Agency response immediately following the quoted
investigation report finding. The page number at the end
of each such finding corresponds to the page number of the
finding in the investigation report.
1. Personnel policies
The report recommends adoption of a firm written policy to
control foreign service appointments below the Foreign
Service Reserve (FSR) 2 level in support offices. The Agency
has such a firm written policy. All such positions have been
competed since 1975 in accordance with ACTION's Union
Contract and its merit promotion plan. The Civil Service
Commission has acknowledged ACTION's statutory right to use
Foreign Service hiring authorities. All such appointments
support Peace Corps. The circumstances in which these
authorities can be used is set forth in the Foreign Service
Act. ACTION does not believe additional clarification is
needed.
The investigators found that the Agency is in full
compliance with Civil Service Commission (now Office of
Personnel Management) policies in determining qualifications
of job applicants based on knowledge, skills, and abilities
rather than solely on past earnings. This policy has the
effect of eliminating past discrimination with respect to pay
scales for women and minorities and has the effect of opening
Government service to highly qualified individuals whose
previous experience had been in state and local governments
and nonprofit organizations. The investigators question this
established Civil Service Commission practice.
The Agency is in agreement with the finding that compliance
with reporting procedures on experts and consultants have not
been adequate and that in some instances experts may have
been performing staff functions. Measures have been taken to
correct both of these problems.
The investigators found that the Agency has increased the
number of non-career policy positions by 30 when compared
with the final days of the last administration. However, a
more appropriate comparison to the first years of the last
administration indicates that the Agency presently has 69
fewer non-career positions. Additionally, all non-career,
general schedule policy positions have been approved by the
Civil Service Commission (now Office of Personnel Management)
as necessary and appropriate.
ACTION's use of experts has been prudent. The present
administration has reduced by 60% the amount of money
expended in 1977 and 1978 for consultants when compared to
the amount expended during the first two years of the
previous administration.
The staff of the Director's office is comparable with
previous administrations. The size of the Director's staff in
June 1978 was identical (36) to the size of the Director's
staff in June 1974. As of September 30, 1978, 25 individuals
were on the Director's staff.
The draft report ignores the fact that the present
administration has eliminated abuse of the Foreign Service
appointment authority. The Civil Service Commission found
consistent and pervasive abuse of the entire personnel system
under the previous administration. These abuses have been
corrected and systems instituted to ensure that they cannot
recur.
2. Reorganization
In the last two years ACTION has reorganized its domestic
operation field structure in order to: shift program
authority to the state offices and give program offices
increased policy and budget authority. In addition the Office
of Voluntary Citizen Participation was created. Much of the
reorganization effort was undertaken by an agencywide Task
Force. The planning process incorporated techniques which are
approved by most modern management experts. Use of these
planning techniques permitted the Agency to carry out
decentralization with minimum disruption of Agency activities
and personnel. While the investigative staff questioned the
cost of the reorganization, they offered no evidence that it
could have been carried out as effectively at lower cost.
Since the reorganization was not completed when the
investigative staff finished its review, additional time is
necessary before a determination can be made about whether
the reorganization will achieve all of its objectives.
3. VISTA national grants
VISTA, a volunteer anti-poverty program created in 1964,
experienced hard times during recent administrations and, in
fact, was scheduled for zero funding by the Ford
Administration in FY '79. In 1973, Congress rejected attempts
by the previous Director of ACTION to move VISTA away from
its poverty orientation by reaffirming, in the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act, that the mission of VISTA is to
concentrate on poverty and poverty-related activities. When
the new administration took office in March of 1977, it found
a demoralized Agency with a rapidly deteriorating sense of
purpose.
To establish VISTA's new positions, which had been shifted
in recent years to having volunteers perform staff and one-
to-one service functions, the new administration implemented
the National Grants program. The purpose of the grants was to
demonstrate not only to the Agency, but to the entire poverty
community, that a renewed and expanded approach to fighting
poverty could be expected from ACTION in keeping with its
Congressional mandate. VISTA, under the present
administration, emphasizes the support of community based
efforts which build the capacity of community residents to
identify their needs, develop realistic plans to meet those
needs and secure the resources to implement their plans. The
end goals are to have volunteers leave the community with an
established mechanism for continuing the project in the hands
of the community residents and to have volunteers participate
in breaking the cycle of poverty instead of perpetuating it.
National Grants enable VISTA to:
(1) Program for national impact on issues of concern among
poor;
(2) Reach populations of special need;
(3) Develop projects with grassroots groups which
ordinarily would not be sophisticated enough to compete for
federal funds;
(4) Provide a single, simplified application process for
multiple, grassroots projects which have a common program
emphasis.
The investigative staff questioned the development of
VISTA's National Grant program, which represents 14% of
VISTA's overall budget. More than 70% of each grant is used
to pay the living expenses and other direct support costs of
VISTA volunteers. No part of any National Grant is used to
pay overhead expenses of the grantee. These grants, twelve in
number, have been awarded to nationally recognized groups
which have a proven record of addressing the social and
economic conditions at both the regular and national level
which impoverish 26 million Americans. Among the activities
carried on under these grants are low income food
cooperatives; nutrition, education and health projects, and
housing and home improvement projects.
In the report, the investigative staff questions whether:
(1) National Grants should be awarded on a competitive basis;
(2) VISTA meets its Congressional mandate of helping the
poor; (3) VISTA volunteers have engaged in prohibited
activities; (4) National Grant volunteers are more expensive
than traditional VISTA volunteers; and (5) VISTAs are
provided adequate training.
Competitive grants
There is no legal requirement that grants be competed. In
the entire history of ACTION, prior to 1978, no grant had
ever been awarded competitively. In January of 1978, two
months prior to the signing of an Executive Order by the
President encouraging federal agencies to award program
grants on a competitive basis, and three months prior to the
beginning of the Appropriations staff review, ACTION
established a new policy to require competition of all future
national grants. At that time, seven National Grants had been
awarded and five were in advanced stages of review. No
National Grants were awarded except those in process at the
time the decision was made to require competition for
national grants.
VISTA's poverty mandate
VISTA serves poor people. To the extent that the efforts of
VISTA volunteers help other non-poor Americans, the benefit
is incidental to this main purpose. A co-op founded and
controlled by poor people may have non-poor members. Street
lights installed in a slum shine on everyone, rich or poor.
VISTA's anti-poverty mandate is based on the premise that
no group of Americans should be stigmatized and cut off from
the rest of American society. The cardinal lesson learned in
the last 15 years is that the poor can best ameliorate their
condition through social and economic cooperation with other
segments of the society which are directly affected by the
problems which cause and perpetuate poverty. VISTA's success
in the last two years, in reaching one out of every twenty
people who are impoverished, is directly related to this
policy of building coalitions of people rather than
segregating the poor.
Volunteer involvement in prohibited activity
All VISTA volunteers are prohibited by law from
participating in partisan or nonpartisan political activity.
ACTION strongly enforces these restrictions through training
programs to prevent violations and through a thorough
monitoring system. All 730 sponsoring organizations and all
12 National Grantees were informed of these prohibitions on
political activity and accepted them as a condition of VISTA
sponsorship. All VISTA Volunteers are thoroughly instructed
regarding these prohibitions during their orientation. In the
last two years, ACTION's monitoring system has discovered
three instances in which VISTA volunteers were participating
in such prohibited activity. All were stopped.
In visiting VISTA sites, the investigators discovered two
other incidents in which VISTA volunteers were participating
in prohibited activity. These were also stopped. In response
to the concerns raised by the Committee staff, ACTION has
again given notice to all sponsors and National Grantees
regarding the prohibitions on political or labor organizing
activity.
Cost of volunteer training
The cost of VISTA volunteers placed with national grantees
was approximately $700 more than standard VISTA volunteers--
the difference is almost entirely attributable to lengthened
and improved training provided to these volunteers.
Adequacy of volunteer training
Standard VISTA volunteers also need better training. In
comparison to the training provided Peace Corps Volunteers,
VISTA training in the recent past has been cursory. In 1976,
standard VISTA volunteers received 2 to 2\1/2\ days of
orientation. Beginning in 1977, ACTION systematically began
to rebuild and strengthen its training programs for VISTA
volunteers. The increased training provided National Grant
VISTAs was the first step in the development of this new
training program.
ACTION's budget for Fiscal Year 1980 includes funds to
complete the development of an integrated training program
which will add 6 days to the training schedule of standard,
as well as National Grant volunteers.
4. Procurement
The report recommends more adequate advance procurement
planning in order to provide more lead time to the
procurement office. Improvements in planning would, the
investigative staff believes, result in improved competition,
with resulting benefits to the Government, both in the
quality and cost of contractual services. ACTION agrees with
the investigators' analysis. The Agency identified this long-
standing problem in May 1978. In October 1978, at the
beginning of fiscal year 1979, it issued, for the first time,
a procurement plan call to all program offices. All program
offices are now required to submit schedules of their
procurement requirements to the Contracts and Grants
Management Division for the ensuing 12 months at the
beginning of each fiscal year.
The report also recommends that program staff members be
training in the statutory and regulatory requirements
governing federal procurement. ACTION accepts this
recommendation.
Federal procurement is a complex field. Program officials,
as well as contracting personnel, need to be familiar with it
to make the procurement process more efficient and to avoid
inadvertent improper actions.
5. Financial management
The Accounting System: Only 62% of all federal agencies
have had their accounting systems approved by the General
Accounting Office (GAO). In August, 1978, ACTION became one
of them. For the first time in the Agency's history, its
accounting system has been approved by GAO.
Obligation of funds
On three occasions during the last fiscal year, ACTION was
left with no legal authority to obligate funds. ACTION has
followed operating procedures that are common to all federal
agencies in its restriction of expenditures during these
periods. The investigators concluded, however, that contracts
and grants were signed, purchase orders executed and new
employees hired during a period when the Agency had no legal
authority to do so. A substantial portion of the report
findings pertain to the obligation of $417,000 by grant or
contract during this period. The investigators' conclusion is
mistaken with regard to approximately $350,000 cited in the
report as improperly obligated. The Agency agrees with the
finding of the investigators that several small contracts and
leases were executed without authority by Peace Corps Country
Directors overseas who were not completely familiar with the
appropriations process. All these obligations were
subsequently ratified by Act of Congress.
The investigators correctly point out that new employees
were hired during these periods. In most cases, a prior
commitment had been made to the individuals which had to be
honored.
ACTION also agrees with the findings of the investigators
that ten ACTION/Peace Corps staff members stayed at Peace
Corps staff houses overseas and failed to have their per diem
reduced as required when staying in Government leased
quarters. The Office of General Counsel has issued a
clarifying memorandum and asked GAO for an opinion on how to
handle cases in which per diem may have been inappropriately
claimed in the past.
6. Role of the inspector general
The investigators suggest the ``possibility'' of a conflict
of interest in having the Inspector General functions and
Equal Employment Opportunity functions in the same office--
the Office of Compliance. The suggestion is based on a
provision in the new Inspector and Auditor General Act
requiring that Inspector General offices be free of program
responsibilities.
ACTION is not covered by the Act. Furthermore, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Office has no program
responsibilities. The potential for a conflict of interest in
this arrangement is remote. Any potential or apparent
conflict of interest in an investigation of the EEO division
would be resolved by assigning a third party within the
Agency, reporting to the Director, to conduct the
investigation.
The combining of Inspector General and Equal Employment
Opportunity functions was made to conserve Agency resources
and to avoid duplication of effort by including within one
division the various monitoring and compliance functions of
the Agency. The Inspector General is afforded adequate
independence under the present structure. The Director of the
Office of Compliance is part of the Executive Staff of the
Agency and reports directly to the Director of ACTION.
c. conclusion
The ACTION Agency appreciates the Committee staff's
diligent efforts to indicate areas of Agency operation which
can be improved. Several of the recommendations are helpful
and will be or already are being acted upon by the Agency.
(See Attachment ``A''.)
We believe the information contained in the Agency's
response to the Committee report provides additional
information which will be of assistance to the Committee in
evaluating the findings of the report.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my opposition to the
nominations of Derek Shearer and Sam Brown. Now, there have been a
number of nominees put forth by President Clinton whom I have
supported, though I strongly disagree with some of the policies they
have espoused, because I believe that, absent disqualifying factors,
the President is entitled to name his team. There are, I believe,
numerous areas of domestic policy in which people of good conscience
can disagree.
But there can be no disagreement about the importance of putting on a
solid and pro-American front when we face the world. Our international
diplomats must be strong and unequivocal supporters of the United
States and its policies, especially now, in an age where many grave
regional instabilities have replaced the bipolar cold war order. We
must understand that the struggle for freedom and peace is far from
over, and we must ensure that those who hold sensitive positions in
this struggle are highly-skilled individuals devoted to historic
American principles and interests.
Derek Shearer does not meet this test. As coauthor of a 1981 book,
``Economic Democracy: The Challenge for the 1980's,'' Shearer advocated
massive Government interventions in the marketplace, including:
Dismantling or restricting the power of private corporations and
transferring capital from corporations to the public, via the
Government. He has stated wistfully that ``socialism has a bad name in
America and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is
going to change that in our lifetimes.'' Now, he has argued that this
writing was taken out of context, but in light of the evidence, I would
submit that no amount of wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Shearer is
going to change the clear import of his statement.
You can call what he advocates ``economic democracy,'' as the title
of his book does--but I call it socialism. And, in fact, so does Mr.
Shearer. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Shearer said,
While we can't use the ``S'' word, that is ``socialism''
too effectively in American politics, we have found that in
the greatest tradition of American advertising, that the word
``economic democracy'' sells.
Frankly, Mr. President, I am outraged that someone with this
ideological history is even being considered for any diplomatic post--
much less that of Ambassador to Finland. Perched near the former Soviet
Union, Finland needs the support of adherents of free market economies,
not the ministrations of those like Mr. Shearer, who has advocated
creation of a government holding company, which would purchase a large
number of shares in at least one major firm in selected major
industries. I find Mr. Shearer's views antithetical to the sacred
American traditions of free enterprise and private property. I cannot
state strongly enough my complete opposition to Mr. Shearer's
nomination.
Now, one might be tempted to think that Derek Shearer was simply an
isolated foreign policy mistake on Bill Clinton's part--because he is
the brother-in-law of the Deputy Secretary of State, and the brother of
a senior assistant to the First Lady. But coupled with the nomination
of Derek Shearer is the naming of Sam Brown to be Ambassador to the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. And if there is any
nomination I oppose as completely as Derek Shearer's, it is Sam
Brown's.
Sam Brown has a long history of anti-Vietnam war activism. That in
itself may not be disqualifying, but I believe that the extent to which
he pursued these views reveals him to be fundamentally out of step with
any mainstream formulation of American foreign policy. In 1977, Brown
attended a welcoming celebration for Communist Vietnam's newly-arrived
delegation to the United Nations, billed as ``an apology to Vietnam.''
At the time, Senator Moynihan spoke out, and expressed outrage--which I
share today--at the New York Times' report that Brown was ```deeply
moved' by the experience of having his own government excoriated by the
spokesmen of a Stalinist dictatorship.'' Eric Sevareid--no right-wing
zealot--charged at the time that ``Most of those [at the celebration]
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.''
Nor are Sam Brown's comments at the time reassuring. According to a
1977 Penthouse interview as quoted in the May 11, 1994 edition of the
Washington Times, Brown said that the United States ``does horrible
things as a country, and I'm concerned about the destructive nature of
American society.'' He also adjudged the future price of the Vietnam
war as ``the much more expensive lesson that we have to give up some of
what we've got in economic terms * * * it is not right for us to have
the kind of extravagant, consumption society that we have.''
I submit that this sort of extreme behavior and expression of extreme
beliefs is per se disqualifying--that having celebrated his country's
defeat abroad and moralizing about it at home, Sam Brown does not now
deserve the privilege of representing the United States of America.
There have been doubts raised about the competence of Mr. Brown to
fulfill the responsibilities of the position for which he has been
nominated, in light of the poor management skills he displayed as
Director of the ``Action'' Agency under President Carter. Although I
usually think that lack of competence and experience is a much more
appropriate reason to reject nominees than on the basis of their
beliefs, in a case as extreme as Sam Brown's, I draw the line. Were he
the best administrator in the world, I could not support him, because I
believe that the views he holds, however well-intentioned, are inimical
to America.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would submit that if there is one
area where we should be able to set partisanship aside and stand
together as Americans and as patriots, it is in the arena of foreign
policy. I do not oppose Mr. Brown and Mr. Shearer because they are the
nominees of a President of the other party. I oppose them because I
believe they represent a radical fringe with views that are to the left
even of the Democratic Party--and highly inconsistent with the views
expressed by President Clinton in his campaign and subsequently. And I
do not believe, if the substance of these men's views were disseminated
to the American people, that Americans would recognize any opinions
that they would claim as their own. As such, I cannot in good
conscience, have any part in sending them overseas to propound theories
that are wrongheaded, ill-conceived, and contrary to American
interests.
____________________