[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
nomination of sam brown, jr.
The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].
sam brown and vietnam
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the senior Senator from
Washington [Mr. Gorton] stated his objection to actions by Mr. Brown in
1977 allegedly celebrating the victory of Communist totalitarianism in
Vietnam and the defeat of the United States. Senator Gorton found such
conduct particularly inappropriate, because Mr. Brown at the time was a
U.S. Government official, the Director of ACTION. I would share that
concern if the allegation were correct. But it is not.
Senator Gorton's statement of concern is based, at least in part, on
a report by Eric Sevareid of CBS. According to that report, in
September 1977 there was a reception celebrating the arrival of the
Vietnamese delegation at the United Nations which Mr. Brown attended.
According to Mr. Sevareid, those in attendance at the reception ``never
had the slightest objection to the murderous civil war in Vietnam,
which was started by the Hanoi Communists, who invaded the South.'' Mr.
Brown is also reported to have stated at the reception that ``this is
the proudest day of my life. This is what I've been working for all
these years.''
These and associated allegations about Mr. Brown's attendance were
addressed by the committee in written questions to Mr. Brown. In his
answers, Mr. Brown categorically denied that he said or did anything in
the way of celebrating a Communist victory or rejoicing in an American
defeat. Let me state for the record some of the questions posed to Mr.
Brown by the committee and his responses:
Question. ``Were you in fact in attendance at this
reception?''
Answer. ``I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to
this allegation which has been floating around for years. I
was walking up Broadway in New York City with my fiancee and
saw a marquee advertising a Vietnam-related event. We stopped
in very briefly--no more than five minutes or so. I did not
sponsor, speak at, or in any other way support this event.
After realizing the nature of the event, my fiancee and I
left.''
Question. ``Would you consider yourself among those who
`had no objection' to the invasion of South Vietnam by North
Vietnam?''
Answer. ``No.''
Question. ``Did you believe at that time that the United
States was truly acting as an imperialist force seeking
colonial gains in Vietnam?''
Answer. ``No.''
Question. ``Did you believe at that time that the United
States was truly acting as an imperialist force seeking
colonial gains in Vietnam?''
Answer. ``No.''
Question. ``Do you currently believe that the United States
was acting as an imperialist force seeking colonial gains
during the Vietnam War?''
Answer. ``No.''
Question. ``* * * Dr. Henry Kissinger writes `What I have
difficulty understanding is the relish with which some
Americans greeted our humiliation in Southeast Asia. When I
see, for example, the head of ACTION going to a meeting where
the North Vietnamese ambassador, upon joining the U.N.,
castigates the United States, and this American official says
`This is the proudest day of my life. This is what I've been
working for all these years,' that raises to me really
profound questions about the fundamental motivation from the
beginning.''
Are these accurate reproductions of your statements at the
time?''
Answer. No. I, like many Americans, opposed U.S.
involvement in the war in Vietnam and worked through the
political process to bring it to an end.''
Question. ``Did you applaud when such statements were made
regarding the United States of America?''
Answer. ``No, I left when the nature of the meeting became
apparent.''
Mr. President, I believe that this sampling of Mr. Brown's responses
to questions about the New York event establish that the media and
other commentators have inaccurately and unfairly characterized Mr.
Brown's actions and views in 1977. Mr. Brown was an opponent of the
Vietnam war--as I was, I would like to add--but he did not exult in
America's defeat; nor did he champion North Vietnam's bloody cause. He
simply advocated an end to American involvement in what he believed--as
did I and many others in this body--to be a war that was not in
America's interest to continue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for such time as
he may require.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished chairman who
put into the Record the quote from the New York Times article. If it
has not already been submitted for the Record, I ask unanimous consent
that the entire New York Times article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1977]
Thousands Welcome Vietnam Delegates--Antiwar Activists Among Those at
Ceremony in New York for United Nations Team
(By Pranay Gupte)
With an explosion of emotion yesterday, Vietnam's new
delegation to the United Nations was greeted by thousands of
its American friends and supporters, many of whom had opposed
the United States involvement in Indochina. In songs, and
speeches they suggested that a new, more harmonious, era
between the two countries was about to begin.
``Your presence here finally puts the past behind us,''
Cora Weiss, a longtime antiwar activist, said to the
Vietnamese at a ceremony at the Beacon Theater, Broadway and
74th Street. Her reference seemed to be as much to the end of
the Vietnam war as to the recent admission of that nation to
the United Nations--admission that the United States had
opposed several times.
As she spoke, dozens of supporters of what was once the
Saigon Government stood in the rain outside the theater and
chanted slogans accusing the Vietnamese Government in Hanoi
of ignoring human rights. Occasionally, a sharp argument
would break out between the demonstrators and passersby, and
at one point it even looked as though there might be a
fistfight. There were no arrests, although policemen watched
warily.
Inside the theater, there was only a sprinkling of
Vietnamese residents of New York City, where their community
has become a visible presence in recent months. Before the
festivities started, the Vietnamese delegates lined up in the
lobby to shake hands. There was much picture taking and
exchanging of pleasantries.
After almost an hour, the Vietnamese strode into the
auditorium. They were robustly cheered by the audience, which
included representatives from more than 40 delegations to the
United Nations and which had been invited--for $2.50 a
person--by Friendshipment, a coalition of peace and religious
groups in this country.
``Welcome!'' Mrs. Weiss shouted. After her speech, she
beckoned the Vietnamese to come to the stage. They climbed
the steps and, with hands clasped above their heads,
acknowledged the applause of the audience.
u.s. `imperialists' attacked
One of the Vietnamese, Ngo Dien, the Deputy Foreign
Minister of Press and Information, then stepped to the
microphone and read a speech, a substantial portion of which
was an attack on United States ``imperialists.''
``From such a long distance the American imperialists sent
half a million troops to wage a bloody colonial war,'' he
said in English. ``Yet no enmity exists between the
Vietnamese and American people.''
Heavy applause interrupted him.
Mr. Dien motioned for quite, then continued: ``How can we
accept that those who dropped 50 million tons of bombs on
Vietnam not contribute to the healing of war wounds?'' There
was more applause.
``Long live the friendship between the Vietnamese and the
American people!'' Mr. Dien declared.
The crowd once again rose to its feet and cheered.
Among those who applauded was Ramsey Clark, the former
United States Attorney General. ``I'm very happy to see
Vietnam finally in the United Nations, where they belong,''
he said.
The man next to him nodded. He was Sam Brown, the 33-year-
old former antiwar activist and now the director of Action, a
Federal agency that supervises such volunteer programs as the
Peace Corps.
``I am deeply moved,'' he said. ``It's difficult to
describe my feeling--what can you say when the kinds of
things that 15 years of your life were wrapped up in are
suddenly before you?''
``I believe we ought to aid the Vietnamese in their
reconstruction,'' Mr. Brown said, adding that he hoped
President Carter could be persuaded similarly.
Then Pete Seeger sang a few songs, some from the days of
the antiwar protests in which many of those in yesterday's
audience had participated. Later there were hugs and kisses,
much like in a class reunion.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
The nominee, quoted in the New York Times, said:
I am deeply moved. It's difficult to describe my feelings--
what can you say when the kind of things that 15 years of our
life were wrapped up in are suddenly before you? I believe we
ought to aid the Vietnamese in their reconstruction.
That quote follows a description of the event as just summarized by
the distinguished chairman. The event included a speech by the Deputy
Foreign Minister of Vietnam, a substantial portion of which was an
attack on United States imperialists. According to the article, the
attack received a strong ovation from the group that was there.
Mr. President, it is important to look at is the particular group
that was at the event in the New York theater. The New York Times says
that people were there only by invitation. The New York Times says
there was a fee of $2.50 to enter.
Our candidate describes himself as being there because he simply
wandered in from the street. He said he was walking the streets of New
York and happened to walk into the theater without knowing about the
event beforehand. Sam Brown's recollection is difficult to reconcile
with the New York Times account that people came to the event only by
invitation. It is further difficult to reconcile with the fact there
was a fee involved, both of which the candidate stated he cannot recall
in responses he submitted to committee questions.
It is somewhat difficult to understand how someone who wanders in
from the street with his girlfriend without invitation and without
paying the required entry fee ends up sitting next to Ramsey Clark, the
former attorney general, a celebrity in the antiwar movement and from
the article, a focal point of the event.
But I think, hopefully, the questions that have been asked and the
review presented by the chairman will be helpful to Members.
I think it is appropriate that all of that background be included in
the Record.
Mr. President, I have here a letter from the Jewish War Veterans of
the U.S.A. The letter is addressed, as appropriate, to the chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee. It reads as follows:
Dear Senator Pell: The Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV)
questions the nomination of Sam Brown to the sensitive
position of Ambassador to the Conference on Security &
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).
A review of Sam Brown's background presents inadequate
experience in the necessary military, diplomatic, and arms
control experience required for the position.
Previous CSCE ambassadors Max Kampelman, Warren Zimmerman,
and John Kornblum were individuals of broad experience and
capabilities.
JWV strongly recommends that the Administration nominate an
Ambassador with the requisite capabilities comparable to
those of the other involved nations.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Blatt,
National Commander.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell].
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as to the questions that were asked of Mr.
Brown, which the Senator from Colorado mentioned, I think we ought to
put into the Record also his replies, what his answers were to the New
York Times story.
He said:
A New York Times reporter saw me as I was leaving the
meeting and asked my feelings. So far as I know, the quote is
accurate, although I don't recall what went in the ellipsis
in the quotation and it is a very partial statement of my
views. I, like many Americans, opposed U.S. involvement in
the Vietnam war and worked through the political process to
bring it to an end. I was relieved that the war was over--a
cause to which I had given many years of my life--that
American soldiers were no longer dying, and that Vietnam was
entering the United Nations.
And when it came to the question of the $2.50 fee or invitation, he
was asked this question.
The New York Times reported that Friend- shipment, a
coalition of peace and religious groups in the United States,
had invited those in attendance at a cost of $2.50 per
person.
Mr. Brown was asked the question:
Did you receive an invitation from Friendshipment to attend
the event at the Beacon Theater? If you did not receive an
invitation, please explain what action you took to gain
admittance to the event.
And his reply is: ``No. None.''
Then the question was:
Did you pay the $2.50 admittance charge in advance at the
theater or was the fee waived in your case? If the fee was
waived, what actions did you or members of your office take
to waive the fee?
And his reply:
I arrived after the event had started and do not recall
paying for the event. I took no action to waive the fee.
Since I was not aware of, and had not planned to attend the
event, my office could not have taken any action to waive the
fee.
Then finally, he was asked:
Did the Federal Government reimburse you for the cost of
attendance at the event at the Beacon Theater?
And his reply was a flat, ``No.''
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be charged
equally on both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The absence of a quorum has been suggested with the time to be
equally divided between both sides. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
nomination of Mr. Sam Brown to be the United States Ambassador to the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE].
First, I would like to take issue with Mr. Brown's radical
philosophies and activities that bring into question his position on
American foreign policy. He was very active in the Vietnam Moratorium
Committee, which was an organization that served as a Catalyst for
turning public opinion in America against the Vietnam war. In 1977, he
attended an event sponsored by Communist Vietnam that celebrated
Vietnam's admission into the United Nations. These antiwar show
disrespect for every American who fought for this country in that
bloody conflict. Every heart-wrenching decision made during Vietnam was
made for the advancement of democracy. However, Mr. Brown appear to be
more in favor of socialism than the advancement of democracy. He seems
to favor a ``work force democracy'' or ``economic democracy,'' terms
that have been described as euphemisms for socialism.
Second, I would like to express my doubts as to Mr. Brown's
qualifications to perform adequately as head of the U.S. delegation to
the CSCE. The official job description for this position requires the
head of the delegation to ``lead a large integrated U.S. delegation of
over 25 substantive officers from State, Defense, the JCS [Joint Chiefs
of Staff], the intelligence community, ACDA [the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency], and the USIA [U.S. Information Agency] responsible
for all aspects of U.S. relations with the CSCE. * * *'' How is a man
who has publicly stated: ``I take second place to no one in my hatred
of the intelligence agencies,'' going to carry out the mission of this
delegation with the unity and cooperation that it needs?
The CSCE plays an important role in monitoring current arms control
agreements and negotiating future agreements to ensure the continued
United States security in Europe. Mr. Brown simply does not have the
diplomatic or national security experience critical to this position.
Furthermore, there is evidence that Mr. Brown demonstrated poor
management as director of the ACTION Agency during the Carter
administration. That agency was the subject of a House Appropriations
Committee investigation in 1978. Some of the concerns raised by that
investigation include improper procurement practices, the elimination
of the agency's independent inspector general office, and subsidized
nonofficial employee travel. These types of possible abuses and
violations of regulations and policy do not enhance the credibility of
this nominee. The CSCE position requires a person of the highest
qualifications and Mr. Brown does not meet this criteria.
Mr. President, I agree with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
that it is time to fill this position so that the CSCE can begin its
important role in the post-cold-war era. I do not agree, however, with
the committee's conclusion that Mr. Brown will provide the strong
leadership needed in this position. I strongly urge my colleagues to
send Europe and our fellow Americans the message that we are committee
to a strong and active role in resolving the crucial conflicts that lay
ahead, by opposing this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Who seeks recognition?
Mr. PELL. Madam 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. PELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time? The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, in response to the points raised by the
senior Senator from South Carolina, I would simply repeat what I
already said, that Mr. Brown has categorically denied the allegations
of pro-Vietnam statements. Also, regarding the staff report on Mr.
Brown's management of ACTION, Senator Simon, when he was in the House,
chaired a hearing on that very same staff report and found that none of
the allegations of misconduct were substantiated and said this in a
statement on the Senate floor just yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I think it is important to read the
report that the House Appropriations Committee staff produced. It was
written by staff under Democratic leadership. It was not a partisan
document nor was it created solely by partisan input. As a matter of
fact, the chairman of the committee that put out that report was a
Democrat. The documentation is complete, extensive and very specific.
Last week we presented a summary, that is included in the Record, for
Members, but I have a copy of it here. There are other copies
available. We have tabbed the specific references, the portions of the
report that we referred to yesterday, and we even referenced the
specific pages of the report.
Let me simply point out this: It was said in the discussion in our
Foreign Relations Committee that the report dealt only with matters
that happened before Sam Brown became head of ACTION. That is
absolutely not correct. I detailed on the floor more than a dozen
examples, specific examples, with citations to the report of criticisms
that are very significant that occurred during Sam Brown's tenure. The
suggestion that these events occurred before Sam Brown was at ACTION is
simply not accurate. It is clear and evident on its face in this very
report prepared by the Democratic subcommittee staff.
Secondly, I think it would be a tragic mistake to ignore the other
evidence that has been presented, specifically the incidence of the
firing of the head of the Peace Corps, the first black woman to head
the Peace Corps who was dismissed by Sam Brown. I mention that not
because people do not have personnel disputes--they do--but the nature
of the personnel dispute I think says something about management
abilities as well.
A public shouting match is not normally a suggested method of
administering or disciplining personnel. Pounding on doors near
midnight in foreign hotels to continue an argument is not a highly
recommended means of handling a subordinate.
I just hope that as the Members consider the question of Mr. Brown's
management style and performance, they will look at the very specific
report that the House Democratic subcommittee has put together; the
reports from the New York Times and other articles that have been
submitted for the Record that detail specifically the disorders, the
violations of law and regulation and the generally inappropriate
management practices that occurred.
Madam President, I want to simply mention also what I think is
something of a contrast, and that is a contrast between the people that
serve the United States at the CSCE now, those that have served in that
position, and Sam Brown. I do not for a minute want to suggest that Sam
Brown is not a person of intelligence or a person who is inarticulate.
He is both. And he is an able person. I have expressed on previous
occasions that I think, given time, he is capable of understanding
these issues, of reviewing the issues, and of developing an expertise
in them.
The question the Senate must consider is this: is Sam Brown ready to
head our delegation at this moment? I have come to the conclusion that
he is not. I hope other Members will look at the comparative background
of the representatives of other nations who will be serving with Sam
Brown as outlined in the committee report and at the background of his
predecessors, as also included there.
For instance, Max Kampelman, representative of the United States
there, who had extensive experience, including legislative counsel to
Senator Hubert Humphrey before he went; alternate member of the
President's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; senior adviser
to the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations; and consultant to the
U.S. State Department.
Warren Zimmermann, language abilities: Russian, Serbo-Croatian,
Spanish, and French. His abilities are in somewhat sharp contrast to
the nominee before us, who does not have foreign language abilities at
this point.
Warren Zimmermann's experience includes an analyst of Soviet foreign
policy, Bureau of Intelligence and Research; speech writer for the
Secretary of State; Deputy Chief of the political section, Moscow;
Special Assistant for Policy Planning, Bureau of European Affairs;
political counselor in Paris, France; Deputy Chairman to the U.S.
Delegation to the CSCE before he was named head of the mission.
As the Members can see, Mr. Zimmermann held a variety of posts before
assuming the delegation's leadership role. In the past we have sent
people who are well qualified, and we should--other delegates at CSCE
are exceptionally qualified and have extensive experience. This is not
a position where the State Department sends you to start learning the
diplomatic trade; this is the culmination of a career--both for U.S.
representatives and those from other countries.
John Kornblum, our most recent Ambassador, in addition to our
language, speaks German and French. His experience includes time as an
international relations officer with the State Department, both in
economic and business affairs, as well as in the Bureau of European
Affairs; political officer in Bonn, Germany; international relations
officer with regard to the Office of Central European Affairs; Chief of
the Political Section, the U.S. Mission to Berlin, Director of the
Office of Central European Affairs. He also had experience as U.S.
Minister and Deputy Commandant in Berlin and Deputy U.S. Representative
to NATO.
What is the point of all of this? The point, I believe, is that
everyone who has represented us has had extensive diplomatic
experience, which stands in sharp contrast to Sam Brown. He does not
have that experience. What is perhaps even more significant is that
everyone we have sent has had some experience in national security. No
one is saying that Sam Brown should have served in the military to have
this post, but I do believe, and I think it is fair to say, that
someone should at least have some national security experience before
they end up being the chief of the delegation that will negotiate the
next Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
If you are trying to get a good horse trader, you ought to at least
know something about horses. If we want somebody who is going to ensure
effective implementation of the CFE Treaty and begin negotiations on a
follow-on, we ought to expect our representative to have at least some
background in national security matters. To suggest it is not
necessary, that national security has nothing to do with one of our
more sensitive diplomatic and national security posts, is absurd.
It has been pointed out that there are experts on the staff who can
assist with these questions. That is correct. A majority of the staff
are either military officers or intelligence officers. Nonetheless, we
are about to put someone in charge of them whose attitude toward
military intelligence and intelligence activities, in general, has been
repeated and summarized on this floor. I assume that quote referred to
by other Members is something said with youthful enthusiasm and does
not represent the current attitude of the nominee.
Let me simply suggest for Senators that an ability to direct a staff
and an ability to work with intelligence personnel, an ability to draw
the best from them in negotiating a treaty, are all important factors.
These abilities should not be ignored as we move forward in our
deliberation as to who can properly serve the United States as head of
the delegation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, in connection with the remarks of the
Senator from Colorado, I was struck by the repetition of the earlier
argument in connection with Mr. Brown's handling of ACTION. I would
like to read into the Record a couple paragraphs from the Congressional
Record of yesterday. This is Senator Simon speaking:
There was an investigation by the House Appropriations
Committee staff. As a result, there was a hearing. In fact,
we had lengthy hearings. I happened to chair the subcommittee
of jurisdiction and Congressman John Ashbrook, the late
Congressman from Ohio, asked that we hold hearings. I said,
``We will hold hearings as long as you want, and you bring in
as many witnesses as you want.''
We held 34 hours of hearings, 6 days of hearings, and one
hearing lasted 14 hours. It was very interesting. I wish John
Ashbrook were alive here today to tell you how much John
Ashbrook would be a Sam Brown fan, or he would vote with us.
But the evidence of abuse just dissipated. We brought in all
kinds of people. Everyone was put under oath, which is
somewhat unusual at our hearings.
I remember bringing in the auditors and the inspector
general, and asked if they found any abuse in terms of the
operation of ACTION. They said, yes; they had found two
instances of abuse. I asked when they had taken place. They
had taken place before Jimmy Carter was President and before
Sam Brown was responsible.
A very interesting thing happened after our hearings. The
House Appropriations Committee increased the appropriations
for ACTION by 20 percent. I see the Presiding Officer, who
chairs the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. You do not
increase appropriations 20 percent for any agency like that.
That was clearly confidence on the part of the House
Appropriations Committee in what Sam Brown was doing.
Did Sam Brown make some mistakes? No question about it.
Does Paul Simon make mistakes? Yes. Does Claiborne Pell make
mistakes? Yes. He is nodding his head yes. Does Robert Byrd
make mistakes? Yes. We all make mistakes. But in terms of
running that operation, I do not think there is any question
that Sam Brown did an effective job. Again, there is no
reason to not give him the title of Ambassador.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, much has been discussed in terms of the
nominee's management abilities and the obviously unusual occasion in
which a Democratic subcommittee investigated a Democratic Agency head
and produced more than a 100-page report. Not only that, the report
contained page after page of criticisms of management style, reports of
violations of specific regulations and allegations of violations of
specific statutes, which is a serious matter. That report and its
findings have been discussed at length.
Additionally, there were a number of reports that appeared in the
press including reports from the Washington Post, the New York Times,
the Wall Street Journal and various excerpts from a variety of other
papers. They all deal with the management abilities of this nominee.
Specifically, they deal with some of the problems that come with this
nominee and his particular management style.
I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 23, 1978]
Efforts to Change Peace Corps Image Have Gone Nowhere
(By Warren Brown)
ACTION Director Sam Brown had what he thought was a good
idea: take a group of ``untrained'' ghetto blacks from a city
such as Oakland, Calif.; send them to a ``developing
country,'' such as Jamaica, to do volunteer service--land
terracing, for example--for three months; and bring them back
home where they could apply their overseas experience to
solving domestic problems.
The purpose was to show that short-term voluntarism is a
``viable development tool'' abroad and at home, that domestic
and international volunteer service programs could complement
one another, and that nontraditonal volunteers--such as
inner-city blacks--could be used effectively in federal
volunteer programs.
The idea flopped.
The Jamaican government, already saddled with high
unemployment among youths and increasingly violent political
unrest, didn't like it. Two ranking Peace Corps officials,
Director Carolyn R. Payton and Jamaica Director Loretta
Carter-Miller, opposed to Carter-Miller, quit as a result.
Payton, whom Brown forced to resign last month, said the
``Jamaica Brigade'' proposal was a key source of friction
between herself and Brown.
The upshot was that no ``brigade'' was sent, no ``short-
term volunteer program''--a major Brown goal--got underway
and no substantially new Peace Corps program has begun since
Brown took office two years ago.
Critics of ACTION, which oversees government volunteer
service programs, have seized on the failure to press their
claim that Brown is a starry-eyed ideologist trapped by the
fervor of his days as an antiwar and political activist and
incapable of moving the federal bureaucracy or dealing with
the Third World.
Brown said the real problem is that he's meeting massive
bureaucratic opposition to his efforts to change the Corps'
image and operation.
``There are a lot of people who think the Peace Corps
should continue to operate the way it did in the '60s,'' he
said. ``They think we should be satisfied with just providing
technical assistance and acting as people-to-people
ambassadors. I can't accept that.
``For the last 15 years in some countries we've been doing
the same thing [sending two-year volunteers to work on
construction, health and teaching projects, for example.]
``I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. In fact,
that's good. But the world has changed drastically since the
1960s, and if the Peace Corps is going to continue to make
sense, it has to stay on top of where the world is and stop
wishing it could go back to where the world was 15 years
ago.''
He said the Jamaica Brigade, conceived in early 1977 and
aborted early this year, was an attempt to break out of the
mold.
``We are going to Jamaica to learn from their experiences;
Jamaica can teach us much,'' Brown said before a trip there
last year to discuss the project with Corps officials and the
country's socialist leader, Prime Minister Michael Manley.
In addition to the short-term aspect, the project would
have differed from other Peace Corps operations in that
participants would have worked primarily for and with a
volunteer agency, the Jamaican National Youth Service, of the
host country.
According to an ACTION outline, Jamaica was selected
``because it was one of the developing nations where new
techniques in community mobilization are being tested and
where a receptive climate exists for exploring short-term
service.''
The Jamaica Volunteers, about 25 blacks ranging in age from
18 to 26, were to come from Oakland, where they would return
to spend one year working in ACTION's domestic volunteer
service program, VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America).
According to the ACTION outline, Oakland was chosen because
``It has a receptive political climate, and a meeting of
community-based organizations has endorsed the idea.'' The
outline added: ``Oakland's problems are typical of the U.S.
Yet it is small enough so that it can serve as an appropriate
laboratory for this pilot project.''
The target date for implementation was last February.
But the project never got off the ground, largely because
of early opposition from Carter-Miller, backed by Payton.
Both are black.
``I did not support the brigade because it was not
philosophically what the Peace Corps was about, nor was it
what I was about,'' Carter-Miller said.
She said she thought the proposal was ``just another Sam
Brown attempt to make a splash and grab headlines.''
``I mean, what sense would it make to send in a bunch of
inner-city youths to a country where there is already a high
incidence of drug use?'' Carter-Miller asked rhetorically.
``I just decided that Sam wasn't going to use me to use
those kids to make some kind of splash. Then, when the s--
hit the fan because of this dumb idea, I was going to have to
be the lady to hang around and clean it up. I got tired of
fighting with him, so I quit.''
Payton said she, too, regarded Brown as operating ``outside
the Peace Corps mandate'' by pushing for the Jamaica Brigade
and similar programs. She said she understood Carter Miller's
``frustration.''
Brown refused to comment directly on Carter-Miller or
Payton. But close aides said the women were poor
administrators, more concerned with protecting their turf
from VISTA encroachment than with Brown's alleged elitism in
dealing with the Third World, and too inflexible in their
interpretation of the Peace Corps' mandate.
Some Brown aides said Carter-Miller had grown
``insensitive'' in her role as Jamaica Peace Corps director,
as evidenced by her home with a swimming pool, servants and a
``substantial American car,'' a Camaro, while in Jamaica.
Her Jamaican life style made Brown ``livid.'' one aide
said.
Carter-Miller responded: ``Poor Sam. Why does he feel he
can live comfortably here while his hard working country
directors live in shacks?
``The real issue is that, under Sam, there's nothing
happening with the Peace Corps . . . I had a pool, sure. I
was totally anti-brigade sure. But both I and my pool have
been out of the way for more than a year, and Sam's Peace
Corps programs still haven't worked. Tell me why?''
____
[From Newsweek]
The Peace Corps: Out of ACTION?
HELP WANTED--Politician or educator, with a natl rep to help
restore U.S. Gov. agency to former glory. Must be willing to
work with demanding boss and deal with Congressnl critics. No
``elitists'' pls. Salary: $47,500.
Sam Brown, director of ACTION, is not yet desperate enough
to place that kind of ad, but he is having trouble finding a
new boss for the Peace Corps, a job vacant since he fired
Howard University psychologist Carolyn Payton last November.
Brown's first choice, former Sen. Dick Clark of Iowa, is
expected to reject the job; he is leaning instead toward a
newly created State Department post handling refugee
problems. Brown says he is also considering former Rep.
Donald Fraser of Minnesota and Michael Bakalis, who lost his
race for governor of Illinois last November. But the nominee
whom he will most likely recommend to President Jimmy Carter
in the next few weeks is a political unknown from within the
ACTION bureaucracy: Larry Brown, 37, now the agency's
recruitment director.
If he gets the job, Larry Brown will face a tough
rebuilding job at the troubled agency. The Peace Corp's
popularity peaked in 1966, when more than 15,000 volunteers
were stationed in 46 countries. During the Vietnam war,
applications fell sharply and the corps was forced to
withdraw from a number of countries. Then, in 1971, President
Richard Nixon further eroded the corps's image by merging it
with domestic volunteer groups under the ACTION umbrella. The
corps continued to shrink in size and prestige, and now only
about 6,000 volunteers work overseas, scattered across 63
countries.
When he took over as ACTION director two years ago, Sam
Brown, 34, hoped to revitalize the corps with a new approach
aimed at helping satisfy ``basic human needs'' in host
countries. The former antiwar activist decreed that all corps
projects should be directed at root problems like health or
nutrition, should concentrate on people most in need and
should promote a ``lasting solution'' that would eliminate
further corps involvement. He has tried to attract volunteers
who have practical skills such as plumbing or carpentry. And
he has cut down on recruitment of English-language teachers,
arguing that they were reaching only a small elite group in
the host country. ``The changes in the Peace Corps are the
changes in America over the past seventeen years--from a
world of unlimited optimism and seemingly unlimited resources
to a recognition of our limits,'' he says.
But Payton and other critics charge that Brown is being
elitist because he is telling developing countries what they
need. By cutting back on teachers, Payton says, Brown is
denying countries the opportunity to understand Western
technology. Brown is also accused of trying to spread his own
political views rather than fill requests for assistance. The
critics point to his desire to place volunteers in several
radical Third World countries. They have also seized on his
aborted scheme to send black youths from California to
Jamaica for a three-month work stint. ``[ACTION directors]
see the Peace Corps as a vehicle to allow unemployed black
ghetto youth to learn about life in a socialist black
country,'' Payton charged soon after her resignation. ``They
would be pleased to have Peace Corps volunteers demonstrate
overseas against corporations that engage in practices with
which they disagree.''
no support
Brown, a campaign worker for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and an
organizer of the 1969 antiwar march in Washington, denies
that he is politicizing the agency and points out that
similar charges were leveled at the Peace Corps long before
he took over. Still, Congress is likely to hold hearings on
the Peace Corps this year to investigate the charges. ``Sam
Brown, in attempting to leave his mark, is greatly altering
the Peace Corps--and without Congressional support,''
complains Rep. Don Bonker of Washington, the new chairman of
the House subcommittee on international development.
In part because of the controversy, Brown could lose
control of the Peace Corps. Last year, Bonker introduced
legislation that would establish the corps as an independent
foundation, funded by the Federal government and operated by
a board of directors selected by the President. Another bill,
introduced by the late Sen. Hubert Humphrey, would place the
agency in a new department along with the Agency for
International Development. Both bills are likely to come up
again this year and, given the current dispute over Brown's
stewardship, Congress may decide the time has come to take
the Peace Corps out of ACTION.
____
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 8, 1978]
``Political Activism'' Peace Corps Goal, Ex-Director Asserts
(By Warren Brown)
Dr. Carolyn R. Payton, forced to resign two weeks ago as
director of the Peace Corps, yesterday accused federal
volunteer program administrators of trying to turn the corps
into an ``arrogant, elitist'' political organization designed
``to meddle in the affairs of foreign governments.''
Payton said she believes the Peace Corps has ``strayed away
from its mission'' of ``promoting world peace and
friendship'' and is trying to impose American intellectual
fads--political and cultural--on host countries.
For example, she said, ``it is wrong to tell a government
in the Third World that its efforts to teach its citizens a
world language--be it English or French--is an `elitist'
idea.'' And it is ``arrogant and neocolonialist for the
American Peace Corps to say to a nation, `We will no longer
teach your children mathematics and science' so that some
secrets of western technology will become accessible to them
but that `we will teach your peasants numeracy and
literacy''' so they can count their cows or print their names
on a wall, she said.
``I believe it is wrong to use the Peace Corps as a means
of delivering a message to particular constituencies in the
United States, or to export a particular political
ideology,'' Payton said in a speech here before the
conference of the Eastern Association of College Deans.
``Those now responsible for the Peace Corps seem to wish
the organization to be engaged in a kind of political
activism and advocacy. They would be pleased to have Peace
Corps volunteers demonstrate overseas against corporations
that engage in practices with which they disagree, or that
market products they see as harmful.
``They would see the Peace Corps as a vehicle to allow
unemployed black ghetto youth, as short-term volunteers,
learn about life in a black socialist country.''
Payton, described by some as an ``establishment'' black
liberal, was the first black and first woman to head the
Peace Corps, the government's overseas volunteer
organization. Her 13-month tenure ended Nov. 24 after a long-
running conflict between herself and ACTION Director Sam
Brown, a former antiwar activist, who had jurisdiction over
the Peace Corps and other federal volunteer service programs.
Brown demanded Payton's resignation because of what were
officially described as ``policy differences.'' Payton
initially refused, but relented at the request of President
Carter, who said the ``unresolvable policy differences''
between the two administrators were hurting ACTION.
Payton's speech yesterday was her first public comment on
her resignation.
``The Peace Corps has strayed away from its mission,'' she
said. ``As director, I could not--because of the peculiar
administrative structure under which the Peace Corps
operates--do anything about this situation. As an ex-
director, I am free to sound the alarm.''
Brown could not be reached for direct comment, just as he
could not be reached for direct comment on Payton's
resignation.
Some ACTION officials said privately that Payton's
statements were ``unfortunate'' and ``Outlandish.'' However,
Marylou Batt, an agency spokeswoman, said: ``We are carrying
out the policies which the president wanted and which the
Congress supported. We are talking about differences of
policy, not of politics, as implied in Dr. Payton's
remarks.''
Batt said Congress has given the Peace Corps a vote of
confidence by increasing its budget by $9 million, from $86
in fiscal 1978 to $95 million in fiscal 1979.
____
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 25, 1978]
Reluctant Payton Quits as Director of Peace Corps
(By Warren Brown)
Peace Corps Director Carolyn R. Payton resigned under
protest yesterday.
In a letter of resignation presented to President Carter
early last evening, Payton said:
``I deeply regret that I am required to offer you my
resignation as Peace Corps director, effective immediately.
``During my 13 months in office, I have attempted to direct
the Peace Corps so that it would fulfill its mandate . . . I
have not succeeded in part because of conditions which had
arisen before you and I took office, and in part because
there have been deep differences between the ACTION
administrator and the Peace Corps over the interpretation of
this mandate.
``Unfortunately, these differences could not be reconciled;
and I could not continue as director.''
ACTION Director Sam Brown, who has jurisdiction over the
Peace Corps, VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and
other volunteer service programs, had earlier this week
requested Payton's resignation because of ``policy
differences,'' according to Peace Corps and other
administration sources.
Payton, through a spokeswoman, strongly implied Thursday
that she would not step down unless told to do so by the
President.
Yesterday, according to a White House spokesman, Payton met
with Robert J. Lipshutz, counsel to the president ``to
discuss policy differences which seemed to be unreconcilable
with Sam Brown.
``Lipshutz said he also discussed with her the president's
feelings that her resignation was best for all concerned,''
said the spokesman, associate press secretary Marc T.
Henderson.
In a statement on Payton's resignation, Carter said: ``I
have come to the conclusion that there are unresolvable
policy differences between the director of ACTION and the
director of one of its major agencies, the Peace Corps.
``In order to carry out the important programs of ACTION
and to resolve this serious impasse, I am today accepting the
resignation of Dr. Payton as director of the Peace Corps.''
The president said his acceptance of the resignation ``does
not in any way reflect on the competence integrity or
sincerity of Dr. Payton.''
``I wish to express my appreciation to her for the good
service which she has rendered,'' Carter said.
Brown issued a statement saying he appreciated ``the
contributions Dr. Payton has made to the Peace Corps.'' He
added, ``I continue to believe that the Peace Corps is the
best opportunity we have for assuring that American
assistance reaches the people with the greatest need around
the world.''
Payton's action yesterday ended several days of rumors and
leaks that she was planning to and had, in fact, resigned
under pressure. It also ended months of bitter wrangling with
Brown that, according to several sources, reached a climax
early this month at a meeting of Peace Corps North, Near
East, Asia and Pacific countries directors in Morocco.
The sources said Payton and Brown got into a dispute over
the Peace Corps fiscal 1979 budget. Payton allegedly felt
that $95 million, up from $85 million for fiscal 1978, was
insufficient to carry out present operations and introduce
new ones.
``The Morocco conference was the final kind of rising to
the surface of the problems between Carolyn and Sam,'' one
source said. Other differences between the two involved
administration of the Peace Corps, the sources said.
Despite numerous attempts, neither Payton nor Brown could
be reached for direct comment.
In her letter of resignation Payton said: ``The issue
between the director of ACTION and me is an issue of
substance about the Peace Corps and not one of my sex, color,
or age.''
Payton, 53, was the first woman director and the first
black director of the Peace Corps. She joined the agency in
1964, and later was its director of operations in the eastern
Caribbean. She left in 1970 to become director of the Howard
University counseling service, and was nominated by Carter
last year as corps director.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 16, 1979]
The Peace Corps Is Far From Peaceful Under Sam Brown
(By James M. Perry)
Washington.--``If there was one thing we were sure this new
administration would do, it was that they would put the Peace
Corps back together,'' says an old Peace Corps hand.
But the Peace Corps, set up in 1961 by John Kennedy and his
brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, and long a symbol of
innocent American idealism, is in turmoil. ``It may not
survive,'' says Democratic Rep. Don Bonker of Washington,
whose International Relations subcommittee chronicles the
agency's progress.
The turmoil swirls around Sam Brown, 35, director of
ACTION, the federal agency that runs the Peace Corps. Mr.
Brown's credentials include organizing the ``children's
crusade'' for Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 presidential
primary in New Hampshire (that led to the fall of Lyndon
Johnson) and leading of the Vietnam Moratorium march on
Washington in 1969 (that deeply troubled Richard Nixon).
``It is the ultimate irony,'' says one of Mr. Brown's
critics. ``Here is the young man who led the antiwar movement
against tyranny in the Johnson and Nixon administrations
running an agency that makes the Nixon days look like a
civil-libertarian dream.''
nasty squabble
Mr. Brown has fired his director of the Peace Corps,
Carolyn R. Payton, a 54-year-old black woman who is a
psychologist and who had been director of counseling at
Howard University. In the '60s, she was a Peace Corps
director in the Caribbean. Her chief deputy, Ruth Saxe,
formerly vice president of Common Cause, the self-styled
citizens' lobby, has resigned. Three or four others have been
fired or have resigned in protest.
``It's a purge,'' says Miss Payton.
If it isn't a purge--and Sam Brown's backers say it isn't--
it is one of the nastiest bureaucratic battles in recent
history. ``I have never heard such vitriol,'' Mr. Brown
concedes.
It is a bizarre tale that began in ACTION's drab offices
about a block from the White House and came to a tumultuous
climax in a hotel in Morocco, when Sam Brown telephoned Miss
Payton at one in the morning and angrily told her she should
quit. It is a story, too, of a young white male committed to
change, even radical change, and an older black woman seeking
to preserve the traditional Peace Corps. Apparently, they
never began to understand each other.
After he took over ACTION in early 1977, Sam Brown took six
months looking for a director for the Peace Corps before he
found Miss Payton. He and his deputy, Mary King, were
delighted. ``Carolyn's appointment is a powerful statement,''
Miss King said.
change of direction
But from the start, Miss Payton says, she and Mr. Brown
didn't hit it off. ``For the first few months we didn't see
each other privately at all,'' she recalls. ``Then when we
began to have meetings, just the two of us, he would work
from a typed agenda. The funny thing is, he would never look
at me directly.''
While she was away last July and August to look at programs
in the South Pacific, Miss Payton says, Mr. Brown changed the
direction and the goals of the Peace Corps--in violation, she
insists, of an agreement they had worked out earlier. She
says the changes involved helping other countries develop
their own domestic volunteer programs and starting a program
in the U.S. to educate Americans about the Third World.
``And we had agreed the Peace Corps would retain its
presence in all 62 countries we were then involved with. But
when I got back they had prepared a `hit list' of 14
countries that we would pull out of.'' The list, she says,
included Brazil, South Korea, Malaysia, Chile, Costa Rica,
Jamaica, Tonga, Fiji and Barbados.
``Sam talked all the time about `exit-entrance,' about
leaving some countries and entering others,'' says Mrs. Saxe,
who is Miss Payton's firmest defender. ``He didn't know what
to do with Mary King, his deputy, so he put her in charge of
that program. She whirled around the world like a UFO,
looking for new places to put volunteers.''
Miss Payton says Mr. Brown and his aides at ACTION adopted
something called a PQLI, a Physical Quality of Life Index, to
determine which countries the Peace Corps should work in and
which to stay out of. ``If a country's PQLI was above the
`magic figure' of 40, we were supposed to get out,'' Mrs.
Saxe says. As a result, Mrs. Saxe and Miss Payton both say,
Mr. Brown intended to take the Peace Corps out of almost all
of Latin America and Asia and send the bulk of its 6,200
volunteers to Africa.
Mr. Brown agrees that's pretty much what he has had in
mind. ``Korea,'' he says, ``has undergone heavy development.
We are no longer needed there so much. We were in some of the
wealthiest nations in the Third World, but we weren't in
Bangladesh. Humanity demands we should make more reasoned
decisions.'' (Bangladesh is one of the countries Miss King
has brought the Peace Corps to; the others are Tanzania and
Congo.)
Mr. Brown denies, though, that there was ever a ``hit
list'' of 14 countries. In fact, he says, there will be no
exiting from any country for at least another year.
the jamaica brigade
From the start, Miss Payton asserts, Mr. Brown had what she
calls ``crackpot ideas.'' One was for a program called the
Jamaica Brigade. The idea was to ship about 200 young, poor
American blacks to Jamaica for three months to work with
young people there. Then, they were to return and apply the
skills they had learned in Jamaica as domestic volunteers
here.
``Theoretically,'' says Miss Payton. ``it's not a bad idea.
But it isn't relevant. So these kids go to Jamaica and learn
about `terrace farming.' What do you do with that skill in
the Oakland ghetto?''
And, adds Mrs. Saxe, ``can't you just see all these
American kids running all over a country where one of the
principal crops is ganja (marijuana)?''
Some of Mr. Brown's aides did go to Jamaica to talk to
Prime Minister Michael Manley. Miss Payton says they showed
up in safari jackets and boots. Mrs. Saxe says the prime
minister jokingly told the Americans to see his brother. The
brother, they add, is to the prime minister what Billy Carter
is to the President.
``It was just an idea.'' Mr. Brown says, ``one of dozens we
were thinking about. It isn't written in stone that a Peace
Corps volunteer should put in two years. That eliminates
professional people and it eliminates poor people. It leaves
the Peace Corps to middle-class white kids.''
jamaican director quits
Mr. Brown insists the Jamaica Brigade became ``an
ideological hook'' to hang him on because he took stern
measures with the Peace Corps director there after he
discovered that ``she was living in a house with a swimming
pool.'' The director, Loretta Carter-Miller, resigned last
year; she couldn't be reached for comment, but Mr. Brown's
critics say it was because she disapproved of the Jamaica
Brigade. Mr. Brown says it was because she wasn't doing her
job.
Mr. Brown confirms rumors that ACTION officials visited
Cuba, too. He says they went there on vacation time. ``But,''
he says, ``they went there on their own hook. I'm not too
smart, but I'm not dumb enough to send an official party to
Cuba.''
Nothing came of the trip to Cuba. Nothing has come of the
Jamaica idea either.
As for Miss Payton, Mr. Brown says he hired her to operate
the Peace Corps, not to make policy. ``It was clear from the
start,'' he says, ``that I had changes in mind. It was clear,
too, that I was the boss.''
showdown in mohammedia
Their confrontation finally came last November at a
regional Peace Corps conference at a place called Mohammedia,
a resort hotel on the Mediterranean coast between Rabat and
Casablanca.
Miss Payton and Mrs. Saxe contend that Mr. Brown and his
chief aides staged the conference so as to embarrass Miss
Payton to the point she would be forced to resign.
``They just took over the conference.'' Mrs. Saxe says.
``They ignored Carolyn. It was brutal. Sam preached at the
directors who had come to the conference. Then they had these
``brainstorming'' sessions where they would write things
people said on these flip-charts made out of newsprint rolls.
We were in a serious budget crunch, and they actually got
some of the directors to say we ought to get out of various
countries.''
Finally, Miss Payton says, ``I told Sam it was obvious my
presence (at the conference) was hurting the Peace Corps. The
major motivation obviously was, `Get Carolyn.' So I told him
I thought it would be in the best interests of the Peace
Corps if I resigned.''
midnight phone call
It was after midnight that night when the phone rang in
Miss Payton's hotel room. The room was filled with a number
of her friends and associates, including Mrs. Saxe. ``He
spoke so loud,'' Mrs. Saxe says, ``we all could hear him.
``He ended up by saying, `Carolyn, why the (expletive
deleted) don't you get out of here?'' Carolyn hung the phone
up and a few minutes later Sam was outside the room banging
on the door. He kept that up for 15 minutes before he went
away.''
Miss Payton says various Peace Corps people urged her to
hold off resigning, and she reconsidered. But when everyone
finally returned to Washington, Mr. Brown asked for her
resignation. The President, whose mother, Lillian, served in
the Peace Corps in India, concurred. So Miss Payton,
reluctantly, submitted her resignation.
Congressman Bonker, when he heard about it, called the
President. Mr. Carter told him to talk to Sam Brown. Mr.
Bonker tried to make the President understand that Mr. Brown
was the problem he was calling about. He doesn't think he got
that message through. Minutes after he had hung up, he
received a phone call from Mr. Brown. ``He was incoherent,''
Mr. Bonker says. The congressman believes Mr. Brown should
resign.
``incredible vitriol''
Mr. Brown confirms that he telephoned Miss Payton and spoke
to her angrily. He acknowledges, too, that he knocked on her
hotel-room door. He says he didn't ``bang'' on it. Nor, he
says, did he stage the Morocco meeting to put pressure on
Miss Payton.
``The level of vitriol in all of this is incredible.'' Mr.
Brown says. ``I had no choice. For two months she was on the
phone every day trying to undercut me in every way possible.
You can't have that.''
He is especially aggrieved that some of his critics liken
the atmosphere in his office to that of the Nixon White House
in its final days. ``If I am such a dictator, such a
martinet, why are these problems popping up only on the Peace
Corps side?'' he asks. ``On the domestic side of this agency,
there has been no trouble at all.''
Now, says Sam Brown, he will try to put the pieces back
together.
____
End to Volunteer Agency Is Urged by Investigators
Washington.--Congressional investigators called for
abolishing a government agency, saying volunteer participants
had engaged in political activity and union organizing.
The report by staff investigators of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor and Health, Education
and Welfare, criticized ACTION, the government headquarters
agency for volunteer programs, for lackadaisical
administration of the program. It said ACTION misused its
powers.
ACTION administers the Peace Corps, Volunteers in Service
to America, or VISTA, and other government-funded volunteer
programs. Its director, Sam Brown, has clashed a number of
times with the subcommittee, which handles its budget.
The congressional staff aimed its criticism chiefly at the
agency's National Grants Program, which awarded $4 million to
12 VISTA projects last year. ``The investigative staff's
findings demonstrate the apparent weaknesses in ACTION's
overall management of its personnel, procurement and budget
and finance programs,'' the report said.
An ACTION spokeswoman. Carol Hansa, countered that the
agency had turned up some of the same matters on its own and
corrected them.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thought it would be helpful simply to
review, very briefly, the background and experiences of the nominee in
relationship to the job he is under consideration for. If this were a
simple ambassadorial post, I suspect the level of review would not be
as rigorous. But this position is much different. Members are well
aware of it. This ambassadorship will not only head the delegation to
the CSCE, but will focus on monitoring the Open Skies Treaty, the
Conventional Forces Treaty as well as lead the negotiations in the new
round of talks on reduction of conventional forces. All of us hope
these new talks will commence and be successful.
I wish to go just briefly to the major areas of concern in terms of
qualifications and what the candidate who is before us brings. This
nominee has no experience with regard to the Forum for Security
Cooperation which was added to the CSCE in recent years, unlike some of
our past Ambassadors and many now at the CSCE. None. In terms of the
CFE Treaty implementation, conventional forces effort, our candidate
has no experience. Not only has he no experience in terms of its
enforcement but he has no experience in national security matters that
would help him to understand the treaty. In terms of the Open Skies
Treaty, he has no experience at all; in terms of the Office of
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, no experience; in terms of
supervision of U.S. military personnel, no experience; in terms of
foreign language ability, no experience.
Madam President, this lack of experience is not only significant in
itself, but stands in sharp contrast to our past representatives who
have served this country and the qualifications and experience of those
who serve other countries at the CSCE. I thought it might be helpful to
go through some of the specific areas of expertise and explain this
nominee's experience.
In terms of arms control which is referenced as a CSCE responsibility
in section 5 of the 1992 Helsinki document, Sam Brown simply has no
experience. When asked about experience in this area, he responded:
Although I attended some meetings at the Aspen Institute
focused on arms control, I do not have direct professional
experience.
In terms of the CSCE responsibility for force planning referenced in
section B(7) of the Helsinki document, 1992, the nominee's response was
as follows. The question put to him:
This position will require significant intimate knowledge
of the military and the ability to effectively assess options
for the use of military forces. Do you have any military
experience?
The response was:
CSCE does not have a military capacity. However, it has the
ability to call on NATO forces for assistance in nonmilitary
missions. My military experience is limited to ROTC and is
not relevant to the post in question.
Question: Do you have any national security experience?
Obviously, a much broader field and perhaps the more significant
question.
Answer: National security includes both military components
and an equally important ability to analyze dangers before
they require military force. In each of these areas, the
Peace Corps is America at its best. In addition, I supervised
the activities of VISTA as treasurer of the State of
Colorado. In my personal life, I have built a small but
successful entrepreneurial business.
All commendable efforts. Nonetheless, the question still remains:
what kind of national security experience has he? The answer is none.
CSCE responsibilities extend also to defense conversion. For those
who are interested, the source of this is section B(8) of the 1992
Helsinki document. When asked about this type of experience, Brown's
response in terms of his experience was ``None.'' He did make reference
to ROTC military experience and a lengthy dissertation on national
security in his written response.
Madam President, let me just go through to summarize for the Members
some of the areas that CSCE deals with, because I think it is helpful,
and relate to you what appears to be the experience of the nominee.
Under arms control, no experience; under force planning, another
important element, no experience; under defense conversion, no
experience; under nonproliferation issues, no experience; the program
for military cooperation and contacts, no experience; the national
security area with regard to NATO, no experience; with regard to the
WEU, no experience; conflict prevention, no experience; dealing with
the former Soviet Union, no experience; Armenia and Azerbaijan, one of
the hot spots that could boil over into conflict, no experience; the
former Yugoslavia, no experience; general peacekeeping operations, no
experience; verification of arms control agreements, a vital area that
relates directly to the monitoring responsibilities, no
experience; under the CFE Treaty implementation, no experience; under
Open Skies Treaty, and military issues associated with it, no
experience; the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights,
dealing with the former Soviet Union, no experience.
We have already talked about Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Yugoslavia.
The answer is the same. Supervision of military personnel, as we have
noted over half of its staff ends up being military or military-
related, no experience; foreign language ability, no proficiency in
another language.
Madam President, these are not abstract standards that are raised to
plague the nominee. These are the functions and the responsibilities
that the ambassadorial post includes.
I want to reiterate that I believe the nominee is bright and capable.
One of the suggestions I had made to the State Department was that they
give him some time to work in the job before nominating him for an
ambassadorial post and before giving him the position signifying formal
leadership of the United States CSCE delegation. Unfortunately, that
suggestion was not well received. I continue to believe that before we
hand over this important responsibility we ought to have some ability
to assure the Senate and the Nation that it is going into the hands of
someone able to carry it out effectively who also has experience in the
important national security issues that are involved.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, I concur in the views of the Senator from
Colorado about the importance of having experience and ability abroad,
particularly for those occupying ambassadorial posts.
I would like to read in the Record a paragraph from a letter
addressed to me by one of the most efficient career Ambassadors we
have, most able career Ambassadors, Warren Zimmermann. He writes this
letter:
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 which 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 me with his
quick 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 Zimmerman.
(Mr. KOHL assumed the chair.)
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may need to the
Senator from California to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
California [Mrs. Feinstein] to speak as if in morning business.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the President, and I thank the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________