[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.

                          ____________________