[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.

                          ____________________