[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]

 
                    NOMINATION OF SAM W. BROWN, JR.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there was a very interesting editorial in 
the Washington Post today. I thought I would bring it to the attention 
of my colleagues by reading it into the Record. It is entitled ``The 
Sam Brown Nomination.''

       The Republicans are making a cause out of opposing the 
     nomination of Sam Brown as ambassador to the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe. They say that he lacks 
     experience in military and national security issues, which is 
     true, and the bureaucratic pedigree of some other countries' 
     CSCE representatives, which is also true. No doubt President 
     Clinton could have nominated someone for this post whose 
     career credentials would have spared the nominee partisan 
     challenge.
       That Mr. Brown is a serious choice, however, is evident. A 
     liberal Democrat, he was Jimmy Carter's director of ACTION 
     (which includes the Peace Corps), treasurer of the state of 
     Colorado and most recently a businessman. At his confirmation 
     hearing he demonstrated the qualities of mind to be a quick 
     study. There is something to be said for brining an energetic 
     outsider into precincts where bureaucratic inertia is a 
     peril.
       The CSCE looks to be such a place. Founded in the first 
     instance to raise the human rights banner at a time when the 
     Soviet empire still held sway, it has been given certain 
     military oversight duties and an additional, loosely grasped 
     mandate to prevent and ease disputes among its members, who 
     now number 52. Somebody with Sam Brown's uncaptured outlook 
     and his political pipeline to the White House could help give 
     a useful focus to an organization that certainly needs it.
       In the Vietnam period Mr. Brown was indeed an ``anti-war 
     activist.'' This record and reputation underlie much of the 
     Republican disquiet now. Interestingly, during his hearing, a 
     couple of onetime Reagan Democrats reported approvingly that 
     he had undergone, as one of them put it, a ``fundamental 
     change of political outlook'' and had worked his passage into 
     the American mainstream. A confirmation hearing ought not be 
     a political inquisition. Ironically, had Mr. Brown's been 
     more of one, some Republicans opposing him might have found 
     reason to reconsider.
       He's taking the CSCE job anyway. It doesn't require Senate 
     confirmation, and the hearing was only about his nomination 
     to the rank of ambassador. We think he's qualified for the 
     job and he ought to have the title that goes with it.

  I think this editorial, which appears today, is worthy of note, and I 
hope my colleagues will read it.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished chairman reading that 
editorial into the Record. It represents the views of a well recognized 
editorial board and I think it will be of help to the Members that 
review it.
  My concern, as we proceed with this nomination, is that Members may 
not have had time to read and digest the material that is here; there 
is so much. Let me acknowledge that it is an awesome task.
  But I hope Members will not simply make their minds up based on 
partisanship or on thoughts that this position is not terribly 
important.
  The responsibilities of the CSCE are much more significant than those 
accompanying most U.S. ambassadorial posts in a particular foreign 
country. Its responsibilities involve oversight of the implementation 
of military treaties whose effectiveness is enormously important to the 
future of the security of Europe. In addition, the CSCE will have a 
direct impact on the future of this country as we try and negotiate 
arms treaties and grow beyond the cold war conflict between East and 
West.
  Supervising and monitoring the Open Skies Treaty is serious business, 
one that takes expertise. Supervising and overseeing conventional 
forces reduction efforts in Europe is serious business and one that 
takes expertise. Negotiating arms treaties with the Russians is 
difficult, tricky business.
  To dismiss as partisan concerns that the candidate is unqualified is 
unfortunate. It is especially so because this is not simply an 
ambassadorial post in which the nominee will report what the feelings 
of the host government are, or what those of the United States are. It 
has major responsibilities for monitoring treaties and negotiating new 
ones.
  When looking at the question of supervising the staff and the 
administrative responsibilities, I hope Members will take a look at the 
report of the Democratic subcommittee. It is very thorough. Let me just 
go through a couple of discrepancies noted. I will not attempt to spend 
a lot of time, but I hope Members will not dismiss these reports out of 
hand. They go to the very heart of the ability of the nominee to do his 
job.
  Printed in the Congressional Record on March 1, 1978 was a note 
written by Sam Brown as director of ACTION in which he opposed 
instructions for Peace Corps volunteers to help them understand the 
philosophical differences between the system espoused by the Soviet 
Union and that espoused by the United States. In a letter of 
transmittal regarding the amendment of the Peace Corps Act of 1979, Sam 
Brown wrote as follows:

       The bill also strikes out a provision which requires that 
     the Peace Corps training for volunteers include instructions 
     in the philosophy, strategy, tactics and menace of communism. 
     This is no longer appropriate to carry out the mission of the 
     Peace Corps.

  Helping the Peace Corps articulate the difference between a free 
system and a totalitarian system was the very heart of what the Peace 
Corps was about. It was designed to help other countries and to send 
our young people to understand and articulate the differences between 
our system and the Soviet's Communist system. To eliminate training 
essential to that understanding is something I believe the vast 
majority of the Members in this body would oppose--certainly at that 
time, when the cold war was at its height.
  The use of Federal funds for personal vendetta. This is referenced in 
the Federal Times and the Congressional Record and included in the 
House Appropriations Committee report. The investigators found that 
volunteers with VISTA, an organization funded by ACTION, were 
discovered indulging in lobbying, political actions, and union 
organizing, activities not permitted with Federal funds. Training 
materials funded by ACTION incited the volunteers to use inflammatory 
confrontational tactics against enemies or so-called enemies, such as 
politicians, utilities and corporations.
  This was a clear violation of the guidelines, restrictions, and 
regulations that the agency is supposed to follow. How can this body 
turn a blind eye to these infractions?
  There are other serious problems of mismanagement during his tenure 
at ACTION and they are very specific. There are several dozen of them 
in the report. I will be happy to go into them later, but I see the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is here on the floor and I 
inquire if he would like time?
  Mr. SMITH. Whenever the Senator is ready.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
yielding, and I commend him on the hard work he has done to bring out 
the information on Mr. Brown. He has done a great service, I think, in 
exposing this information.
  I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Sam Brown to be the 
chief of the U.S. delegation to the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. Frankly, I do so with some reluctance. My 
philosophy in general on nominations that the President makes is that 
the President ought to have a good deal of latitude in choosing those 
who serve in his administration, even when there are philosophical 
differences. However, I also take my constitutional role in the advice-
and-consent process very seriously. I do not hesitate to withhold 
support for a nominee that I believe lacks the experience, and frankly 
the qualifications, to serve in a sensitive position in Government. I 
think in this case there is a lack of qualifications. There is a lack 
of experience, certainly. And I think ideologically Mr. Brown is also 
unsuited for this position.
  Sam Brown possesses neither the experience nor the integrity to 
represent the United States in the rank of Ambassador before the CSCE. 
That is a very strong statement and one that I feel very deeply about 
and am prepared to defend. The chief of our CSCE delegation will be the 
senior United States representative in all negotiations and security 
deliberations dealing with conflict prevention, crisis management, and 
CSCE-mandated peacekeeping operations that could draw on NATO and 
Western European Union forces. He will exercise full responsibility for 
the direction, coordination and supervision of all members of the 
United States delegation, including representatives from the 
Departments of State, Defense, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
and other executive agencies. He will help prepare U.S. policy and 
serve as an adviser to the Secretary of State on questions of security. 
Also on questions of economics, science, the environment and human 
rights.
  What exactly are Mr. Brown's credentials for this uniquely demanding 
and important job? He has no military experience. He was a radical 
antiwar protester and director of the Vietnam War Moratorium Committee. 
He was the vice president of Brown's Better Shoes. He was the Colorado 
State treasurer. He was the director of the ACTION agency under 
President Carter. And he has been a general partner at Centennial 
Partners, Ltd., a real estate development firm specializing in low-
income housing. This is a eclectic professional background but 
completely irrelevant and unsuited to the position to which he has been 
nominated.
  It troubles me to have to take the floor, time after time, in 
opposition to President Clinton's national security nominees. I get a 
chance to see the background on these nominees as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee. But so many of them appear to be cut from the same 
cloth. So many of them are either patently unqualified, unabashed 
antiwar activists, or radical extremists who are simply unsuited to 
these very sensitive positions in our Government--sensitive positions 
in national security. Indeed, many of these people--and Mr. Brown is 
one of them--have no respect for the intelligence community and what 
they do in these sensitive positions. And I will prove that.
  It is not surprising to anyone who has followed the nomination 
process to find the administration's foreign policy is in a shambles. 
The President continues to surround himself with the type of people he 
protested with in the golden years of the antiwar movement. And it is 
having a devastating effect on the quality and the effectiveness of our 
national security policy.
  You judge a person by the company he keeps. You judge a President by 
the appointments he makes.
  In 1992, candidate Clinton vowed that the foundation of his 
Presidency would be to establish an administration that was truly 
reflective of American demography, representing the diverse ethnic, 
religious, cultural and social factions that are America. That is a 
worthy statement. Yet 16 months into his Presidency it is apparent that 
this is one of the many broken promises from Bill Clinton's covenant 
with the American people. The President has in fact adhered to his 
promise to nominate more women, more African-Americans, more Hispanics 
to Government. But he has virtually ignored a very significant group of 
Americans whose integrity and sacrifice for our Nation are immense and 
whose wisdom is much needed in the current administration.
  I am speaking of our Nation's veterans, Mr. President. President 
Clinton has failed to nominate to Government a number of veterans 
proportionate to the total population of this country. And it is clear 
that this antiveteran bias is having a direct and destructive effect on 
the quality of the administration's national security policy--a 
devastating effect.
  Mr. Jack Wheeler, a respected veterans' advocate, and the late Lewis 
Puller, Jr., are two Vietnam veterans who campaigned in support of this 
President but found themselves betrayed by the President on this issue. 
Mr. Wheeler, in particular, has been tireless in his efforts to track 
the status of veterans in this administration and to encourage 
President Clinton to nominate a more proportionate number of veterans 
to senior administration positions. Yet, not only has the 
administration failed to improve its record, the White House has 
consistently withheld information from Mr. Wheeler in an effort to 
suppress legitimate inquiry.
  In his research through last December, Mr. Wheeler found that of the 
first 66 men named to the White House staff, only three--only three--
had served in Vietnam and only seven had ever been in uniform. In the 
Pentagon and Veterans Administration, 16 of 34 male appointees to 
advise-and-consent positions were veterans. Pretty good record on the 
Pentagon and VA. However, when you look beyond those two departments, 
Mr. Wheeler could only find two--two--of 213 male appointees who were 
veterans, and both of them were pre-Vietnam.
  Mr. Wheeler's research and dealings with the White House on this 
issue led him to appropriately state, and I quote:

       The Clinton administration is largely a network clique of 
     people who were antimilitary and antiwar during the 1960's 
     and carry their biases with them still.

  Charles Moskos, a respected sociologist from Northwestern University, 
has researched this issue as well and uncovered some very compelling 
data.
  Using a composite group of men aged 39 to 59 for senior appointments, 
Mr. Moskos determined that the percentage of veterans in the total 
population of America is 42.5 percent. Vietnam veterans represent 33 
percent of that figure. Although the President's advisers have refused 
to release the exact administration figures, research on available data 
puts the number of President Clinton's veteran appointments at a low 18 
percent governmentwide and a minuscule 8 percent in the White House. 
Within the Cabinet departments and independent agencies, for the first 
330 slots filled, only 18 veterans were appointed, when demographics 
would suggest that as many as 82 should.
  In the Department of Defense, there are no Vietnam veterans serving 
in the service Secretary position, and there is only one veteran, 
Defense Secretary Perry, in the top seven DOD policy positions.
  I repeat, President Clinton's antiwar activities have carried right 
to the White House to this day. During December, and under growing 
pressure from Jack Wheeler, Lewis Puller and others, including 
columnist Dave Broder, to provide data on this issue, the White House 
responded that their best estimate was that of the roughly 1,000 male 
appointments that President Clinton had made, about 100 are veterans, 
10 percent. Wheeler and Moskos have accurately pointed out the White 
House figures are roughly one-third what they should be in an 
administration that mirrors America.
  Mr. President, what this means is that no President--no President--in 
the history of the United States of America has ever been this 
antiveteran. No President. It means that our Nation is losing some of 
the greatest wisdom, the greatest experience, and the unyielding 
loyalty that our veterans would bring to Government service.
  It means that, in many cases, the national security policy team that 
President Clinton has put in place lacks the expertise and credibility 
to effectively conduct foreign policy, and it is no wonder that the 
criticism--which has been coming--is coming, and it is justified.
  It means yet again the President has abandoned a fundamental and 
critically important campaign vow with the American people.
  There is a dramatic irony that those who so aggressively protested 
the Vietnam war and who were so vicious in their criticism of our brave 
personnel are now molding the policies that are compromising our 
military effectiveness and undermining our stature in the world.
  There is a dramatic irony that someone such as Sam Brown, who has so 
publicly supported our Communist enemies in Vietnam, could now be 
nominated to represent the United States on issues of national security 
in Europe. It is a travesty and one which the Senate must not condone. 
This is a travesty, Mr. President.
  The American Legion, the highly principled and respected veterans 
organization committed to preserve our national security, in reviewing 
the position to which Sam Brown has been nominated, the Legion 
developed a set of criteria that it believed were essential 
qualifications for anyone nominated as Ambassador to CSCE.
  According to the American Legion, a nominee for this position should 
possess:
  No. 1, diplomatic experience at a senior level and specific 
experience in working with European foreign ministries and diplomats.
  They also said that understanding of national security requirements 
of Europe and the United States and experience in working with European 
ministries of defense and total commitment to placing the national 
security of the United States above all other considerations is 
absolutely essential;
  An international diplomatic reputation on a par with that possessed 
by CSCE Ambassadors from European states, as their representatives are 
almost uniformly of the highest caliber and experience;
  Experience in international crisis management and peacekeeping 
operations and intimate knowledge of and experience with NATO and the 
WEU;
  A broad educational background in history, politics, economics, 
military affairs and philosophy as a basis for effectively dealing with 
the complex and often interrelated problems certain to confront the 
CSCE; and, finally,
  A practical knowledge of functional issues, such as human rights and 
arms control.
  Mr. President, I totally agree with the American Legion. I think they 
are right on the money. These criteria are right on the mark. 
Unfortunately, Sam Brown meets none of them; not a single one. It is 
not even close.
  The Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America is another 
distinguished veterans organization that has expressed strong concerns 
on this matter. According to the Jewish war veterans, a review of Sam 
Brown's background presents inadequate experience in the necessary 
military, diplomatic and arms control areas required for the position.
  As they point out, previous CSCE Ambassadors, such as Max Kampelman, 
Warren Zimmerman and John Kornblum, were individuals of broad 
experience and capabilities. Again, Sam Brown comes up short. In fact, 
it is not even close.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken and will speak later regarding the 
disqualifying aspects of Mr. Brown's background. But I am compelled to 
review two statements by the nominee--just two--that I believe 
seriously call into question the nominee's integrity.
  There is nothing more insightful or illustrative of an individual's 
ideological underpinnings than a review of his written and his oral 
statements. After all, that is how we judge people: By what they say 
and what they write.
  I raise these so that my colleagues can consider them and make their 
own determination on their relevance to the nomination before us. In 
this framework of foreign policy problems, in this framework of 
ignoring the veterans of the United States of America and the 
contributions they are capable of making, I ask you to think carefully 
about these statements.
  First, there is a matter of an August 1970 interview with Sam Brown 
in the Washington Monthly in which Mr. Brown states, and let me quote. 
This is an exact quote:

       On the night of the Cambodian invasion, part of me wanted 
     to blow up buildings, and I decided that those who have waged 
     war really should be treated as war criminals.

  Think about that, I say to my colleagues, Mr. President. Think about 
that. ``* * * those who have waged war really should be treated as war 
criminals.'' The brave men--many of whom lost their lives in Cambodia 
and Vietnam and Laos--ought to be treated as war criminals? And this 
man would be in a sensitive national security position appointed by 
this President of the United States?
  I ask my colleagues, is someone who has harbored terrorist 
sympathies, who holds our brave men and women in uniform in such 
disdain that he considers them war criminals the proper choice to 
represent the United States on issues in security and arms control in 
Europe? Is that what you want? Is that what we deserve? Is that what 
the American people elected this President for? I think not. I do not 
think so.
  We have another interview, December 1977, with Mr. Brown. This one 
was in Penthouse magazine, in which Mr. Brown states--let me quote this 
one:

       I take second place to no one in my hatred of the 
     intelligence agencies.
       I take second place to no one in my hatred of the 
     intelligence agencies.

  Perhaps Mr. Brown has never met Morton Halperin. They certainly share 
a lot in common in competing for that distinction. Do you remember 
Morton Halperin when the Senate brought that issue to the floor in 
great debate, great discussion? The President pulled the nomination and 
put him on the National Security Council where we could not confirm 
him. So he is now in a more sensitive position than he would have had 
had he been confirmed by the Senate.
  I ask my colleagues, is that the person to represent the United 
States before the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe? 
These are the people, the Sam Browns of the world are the people who 
throughout the cold war opposed what we did to fight communism, opposed 
the buildup, opposed the actions we took to block communism and 
eventually defeat it. Those are the people who are now being appointed 
by this President to deal with the world after the cold war, to deal 
with the world after communism. That is no small irony.
  In the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton vowed to focus like a laser beam 
on domestic issues. We agreed with him on the need to address the 
economy, health care, welfare reform, and crime. But he also pledged to 
safeguard our Nation's security and to uphold the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Foreign policy is not something that you handle on an ad hoc basis, 
haphazardly looking--I get up in the morning and look in my ``in'' 
basket. I have a crisis in Haiti. Tomorrow morning I have a crisis in 
Bosnia. Another morning there is a crisis in North Korea, and then 
Somalia. It requires vision. It requires vigilance and the 
determination to do what is necessary, what is necessary to promote 
American security interests.
  Not only that, Mr. President; you have to have people at the policy 
level who respect--who respect--the military that has to do that job 
for us. We saw the terrible tragedy in Somalia. It was a mistake. It 
was a mistake in policy and it cost young men their lives. You must 
have respect for what the military does for you to promote national 
security. If you do not have that respect, you can send them off to 
foreign soil to fight and die when the policy does not support that 
action.
  It is an outrage. It is an outrage that we are seeing these kinds of 
nominees come before this Senate time after time after time. How many 
times is this President going to do this? How many times is this Senate 
going to confirm them? The American people are aware of it, and the 
American people I believe will speak up and speak out in the next 
election cycle because of it.
  It is an outrage that this President continues to nominate people of 
the caliber of Sam Brown to carry out his constitutional 
responsibilities for him. The President is a busy man. We all know what 
it is like in the Senate. We rely heavily on staff. The President 
relies heavily on staff. You judge a man by the company he keeps. You 
judge a President by the appointments he makes.
  Our foreign policy is in trouble. American stature is in trouble. Our 
credibility is being challenged throughout the world in Asia, the 
Middle East, the Adriatic; we are on the verge of a major crisis in 
Korea. Africa is in turmoil. The Middle East is always a threat. You 
need a steady hand on the wheel. You need good crew men and women who 
understand national security and how to protect and promote the United 
States national security throughout the world. We need leadership. We 
need resolve. We need people who will support these principles. We need 
expertise. We need loyalty and integrity from our Government 
representatives.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I submit to you Sam Brown is not that 
person. He is not the solution. He is an example of the problem. I urge 
the Senate, I urge the Senate to reject this nomination. I urge the 
Senate to carefully consider the issues that I have raised.
  The nomination of Sam Brown is a disaster, pure and simple, both 
substantively and symbolically. The Senate simply cannot condone the 
continued erosion of American leadership in foreign policy. This 
leadership will continue to erode with this kind of support behind this 
President. I urge my colleagues to reject this nomination. It is the 
right thing to do. It is the right thing for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask the distinguished manager to yield 
so much time as I may need.
  Mr. PELL. I am happy to do so. I yield the Senator as much time as he 
may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Mr. KERRY. Without losing the floor, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I look forward to the Senator's remarks. My understanding 
was the Senator from Wisconsin wanted a moment.
  I apologize. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is a disturbing debate for a lot of 
reasons, but I think it is most disturbing because the character of Sam 
Brown has been impugned with shorthand criticisms and distortions and 
incomplete context in ways that I really think are not befitting of 
this institution's quality of debate.
  I know my friend from Colorado approaches this with serious intent as 
he does all issues. I respect his personal feelings about the 
qualifications. Those are legitimate. I certainly do not impugn any 
motive to my friend from Colorado for his legitimate perception that in 
his mind Sam Brown is not qualified for this job. I think he is 
incorrect, and I will show why I think he is incorrect and what 
judgments we as Senators ought to be applying to Sam Brown as we try to 
determine whether or not he is qualified. That is certainly a 
legitimate discourse.
  But, Madam President, underlying the discourse, as we heard in the 
most recent speech from the Senator from New Hampshire and from others, 
is an attack on dissent, a reverse form of political correctness that 
is not befitting of this institution. And my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who have been always the principal criticizers of 
political correctness are now coming to the floor and establishing a 
whole new standard of political correctness with respect to Sam Brown's 
right to lawfully dissent on a policy of the United States during a 
period of enormous conflict in this country.
  I think it is important for my colleagues to be fair, not just to 
come to the floor and throw out a little piece of an article and leave 
that piece of article hanging, on Sam Brown's reputation and character.
  This is a book that maybe just came out in time, and I am not here to 
hawk it. But all you have to do is read the Haldeman diaries to 
understand what was driving Sam Brown and a lot of other people in this 
country. And it helps to put this debate in its proper political 
context.
  I am just picking a few select passages. On page 193, Thursday, 
October 9, Haldeman is writing about their strategy on Vietnam. He 
talks about how:

       We will sit tight for 2 or 4 weeks and await a reaction, 
     and if they escalate heavily, we will move fast with heavy 
     retaliation, mining, et cetera, with the bad faith as a 
     basis. Could then probably bring United States opinion around 
     to support level of fighting to get military victory in 3 to 
     5 months.

  Military victory--that was different from what the President was 
saying he was doing, and Sam Brown was perceptive enough to understand 
that.
  On page 193, Saturday, September 12, 1970--this is about the 
President:

       The President has several plots he wants hatched. One to 
     infiltrate the John Gardner Common Cause deal and needle them 
     and try to push them to the left. Feels we can benefit from a 
     third party to the left. I am not so sure, might push 
     Democrats to the center, better to have them go left. Next a 
     front that sounds like SDS to support the Democratic 
     candidates and praise their liberal records, et cetera, 
     publicize their bad quotes in guise of praise.

  Dirty tricks--Sam Brown understood the dirty tricks and had an anger 
about them, as did a lot of people at that point in time.
  Page 221, about the war:

       Kissinger came in and the discussion covered some of the 
     general thinking about Vietnam and the peace, big peace plan 
     for next year, which K later told me he does not favor. He 
     thinks that any pullout next year would be a serious mistake 
     because the adverse reaction to it could well set in before 
     the '72 elections. He favors instead a continued winding down 
     and then a pullout right at the fall of '72 so that if any 
     bad results follow, they will be too late to affect the 
     election.

  The point is, Madam President, that a lot of young people in Vietnam 
were the pawns of the election plan, not the legitimate peace proposal. 
That is what Sam Brown and other people understood.
  Page 239:

       They are planning a major assault in Laos which, if 
     successful, and Henry believes it will be, would in effect 
     end the war because it would totally demolish the enemy's 
     capability.

  Madam President, I could go on and on. But this shows what Sam Brown 
understood: That there was a secret plan; that they were lying to the 
American people; that the effort was to win, not to get out; that there 
was a whole scheme going on, and that American soldiers were the pawns 
in that effort.
  I am not here to redebate the war. I am here to ask U.S. Senators to 
listen and think about the context of the times, and not to hold Sam 
Brown accountable to some different standard.
  One Senator has opposed Sam Brown because he does not like what he 
did at the Chicago Convention. Madam President, Sam Brown did at the 
Chicago Convention what delegates to their country have always done at 
conventions, worked for their nominee. Sam Brown opposed what happened 
in the streets. He argued against it. He fought to tell people it would 
hurt Gene McCarthy. Sam Brown was working within the system against 
radicals, and people have come here to the floor and tried to tie his 
name to those radicals.
  Madam President, another Senator did not like the article in 
Penthouse about the intelligence committees. Well, let me share with 
these Senators who are worried about the intelligence committees of the 
1960's and 1970's what Nelson Rockefeller said about them.

       After five months of inquiry, Nelson Rockefeller's 
     Commission on the Illicit Domestic Operations of the CIA 
     returned its verdict last week and found the agency guilty of 
     nearly every serious allegation against it. The judgment was 
     plainly a sad business for the * * * men who rendered it, and 
     they were at pains to preface their report to the finding 
     that the great majority of the CIA's actions had been 
     honorable. But the 299 now blue-bound pages that follow were 
     a sorry litany of crimes and improprieties by agency 
     operatives on U.S. soil, a bill of particulars that included 
     opening mail, planting taps and bugs, committing burglaries, 
     infiltrating antiwar and black protest groups, testing 
     dangerous drugs on unsuspecting subjects, and accumulating a 
     veritable mountain of dossiers on Americans.

  Madam President, Sam Brown was one of those who was spied on in the 
United States of America. What is he supposed to do, turn around and 
celebrate it and say this is what our Constitution supports? Is he 
supposed to stand up and praise the agency?
  There is a short memory in the U.S. Senate about what the Church 
Commission found and why in fact the Foreign Relations Committee lost 
jurisdiction over the CIA. We created an Intelligence Committee in 
order to rein in these kinds of activities. That is all Sam Brown was 
talking about, Madam President--the fact that they spied on the 
American Friends Service Committee, the clergy, the Committee of 
Concerned Asian Students, the National Students Association, and the 
Vietnam Moratorium Campaign.
  Let me read what Sam Brown sent to Dennis DeConcini on the subject of 
this article.

       Dear Senator DeConcini: I am happy to respond to you about 
     the quotation attributed to me in the Penthouse magazine from 
     December 1977, provided by minority members of the Foreign 
     Relations Committee. On the face of it, it is a pretty stupid 
     thing for me to have said, if it was quoted accurately. The 
     break in continuity, the fact that the response does not seem 
     to track, suggests to me that there is something left out of 
     the quote----

  In other words, there were ellipses--

     but as it stands, it does not accurately reflect my views 
     then nor now. Nonetheless, I've tried to understand how I 
     might have said something like this, and I hope some 
     understanding of the context will be helpful.

  I ask my colleagues to listen to this:

       During my confirmation hearings in 1977, I was questioned 
     very closely, primarily by Senator Humphrey, about the Peace 
     Corps and its independence from intelligence activities 
     around the country. I said I understood the legal obligation 
     of separation and would rigidly enforce this requirement. 
     Although I have been assured from congressional sources that 
     this separation was being observed, nonetheless, the rumors 
     persisted that the CIA was somehow using the Peace Corps. It 
     was very important for me to be able to say to volunteers and 
     foreign governments alike that I would be attentive to this 
     and would resist any breach of this wall. Consequently, I 
     regularly pointed out I had no contact with the CIA. A second 
     contextual issue is that the CIA had shortly before this 
     period in the mid-1970's covertly funded domestic foreign 
     student and intellectual organizations.

  Now, let us understand that. The CIA was engaged in illegal 
activities in America. They had funded illegal foreign student and 
intellectual organizations. He goes on to say:

       There was therefore great skepticism about any assurance 
     that it was not involved with the Peace Corps. The tougher I 
     was, the more credible was my assurance that the Peace Corps 
     was independent and free from interference by the 
     intelligence agencies.
       Finally, in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the CIA had 
     apparently engaged in gathering intelligence focused on 
     domestic groups opposed to the war in Vietnam. This was the 
     subject of litigation at the time of the interview. Evidence 
     gathered in that case indicated I had been the object of CIA 
     surveillance in the sixties when I was active in the antiwar 
     movement. Consequently, I had strong personal feelings about 
     the abuses of their authority. None of this context can 
     excuse the statement attributed to me, which does not reflect 
     my views on the legitimate intelligence activities of the 
     U.S. Government. U.S. security demands that we have current 
     and accurate information on which to base policy decisions. 
     This requires gathering information from covert, as well as 
     public sources, and through technology, as well as from 
     people. It requires that the information received from 
     whatever source be integrated fully with the policymaking 
     process which it is designed to serve.
       My views about America are more accurately summarized later 
     in the same interview * * *.

  Which, I might add, my colleagues do not quote this on the floor; 
they do not quote the totality of this article in the Washington 
Monthly, but here is what Sam said in the same article:

       I really think America is a terrific place. I think people 
     are prepared to give up a lot, to sacrifice, to quit 
     consuming so destructively for a common purpose. There are an 
     incredible number of people ready to listen to sensible 
     things and to relate to each other in some warm, decent, 
     giving way. It is that vision and those values which I bring 
     to this position.

  Madam President, I want to turn to that article, if I may for a 
minute, where they have conveniently painted Sam Brown as some kind of 
monster. Here is the article. They have not read the whole article, and 
I can surmise why. August 1970 is pre-Cambodian invasion; it is in the 
middle of the war and the tensions of the war; it is only 1 year after 
the moratorium, which Sam helped to organize. It is a time when the 
antiwar movement is questioning, and Sam Brown, one of the leaders, 
writes an article that caused him enormous upset within the antiwar 
movement. He writes an article that basically talks about creating a 
peace movement that embraces Senators, Congressmen, Governors, leaders 
of the establishment. Let me read it:

       The new peace leadership should be composed of Senators, 
     Congressmen, governors, mayors, businessmen, all the straight 
     people who are willing to make a firm and unequivocal 
     commitment against the war. The spokesmen should be those 
     most visible and most attractive to middle America, those who 
     can speak intelligently about the war, with strength, rather 
     than condescension or aloofness.

  Is that the voice of a radical? Is that the voice of somebody who 
does not believe in the United States of America? Is that the voice of 
somebody back then who somehow deserves to be lumped in with idiots who 
are out burning the flag? I do not believe so.
  I knew Sam Brown back then, and I can tell you that he was as 
committed to peaceful, nonviolent advocacy and dialog as anybody in the 
United States of America. And he resisted entreaties from other people 
who had a small narrow agenda.
  In fact, Madam President, in this very same article, Sam Brown 
criticizes those people with a narrow agenda, the very people that my 
colleague from New Hampshire criticizes--and I might say rightly 
criticizes. There were people out there saying some plain horrible, 
dumb, and stupid things, Madam President. But Sam Brown is not one of 
them--with a few exceptions where he may have stepped over the bounds 
by being overzealous. But he was not embracing that approach to the 
peace movement, and he has clearly apologized for any kind of 
overzealous indiscretion of youth because of the anger that he had 
about the war at that time.
  He made it very clear that only the peace movement which reaches 
Richard Nixon's constituency can stop it. He said that you have to find 
lessons to try to appeal to people in that way. I might add that he was 
very frank about his own shortcomings.
  He said:

       Those of us in the peace movement who have worked for years 
     on campuses, and in campaigns, in community activities like 
     the moratorium, bear a large share of the responsibility for 
     our alienation from the potential doves in middle America.

  This is a very honest, candid, straightforward assessment of where 
the peace movement was. It is a criticism of the peace movement, and it 
is an appeal, as Sam Brown always appealed to middle America, to 
mainstream, to the electoral process, and that is all he ever worked 
in.
  To come here to the floor of the U.S. Senate and brand him as somehow 
unfit because of these statements is wrong. Let me read you what Sam 
Brown says today about those statements. I talked to the Senator from 
Arizona yesterday, because the Senator from Arizona was concerned, and 
rightfully concerned--as am I who served in Vietnam--about a statement 
in this article about war criminals. This statement has been read many 
times. I want to read it again and put it in its context.
  This is what Sam Brown wrote:

       I think that everyone who has a moral commitment against 
     the Vietnam war feels some of these drives toward left 
     sectarianism. Certainly I do. On the night of the Cambodian 
     invasion, part of me wanted to blow up buildings, and I 
     decided that those who have waged this war really should be 
     treated as war criminals.

  In the context of the Cambodian invasion on that night, that is the 
decision he said he made. Then he goes on to say in the next paragraph:

       But despite past frustrations and failures, I think that 
     political self discipline is precisely what is necessary to 
     end the war.

  So in one breath he expresses his frustration and anger over an 
illegal, secret expansion of the war, but in the next breath--which was 
not quoted--he takes it back and says, ``I think you need political 
self discipline.'' The word ``war criminals'' at that point in time was 
regrettably thrown around. I ought to point out to my colleagues, if 
they want to debate it --and I do not want to, as I do not think it 
belongs in this debate, but they have brought it to this debate--that 
Professor of Law Telford Taylor was the chief U.S. prosecutor at 
Nuremberg. I hope my friend from Colorado will listen to this. He was 
the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg in 1971, and he was respected across 
this Nation. He opined that General William Westmoreland might be 
convicted as a war criminal if war crimes standards established during 
World War II applied to his conduct during the war. So is it any wonder 
that a young war protester and others began to use the vernacular and 
talk about it? After all, stories about Viet Cong being thrown out of 
helicopters had reached America; illegal bombings had taken place; 
harassment and interdiction fire was taking place; search and destroy 
missions were taking place; free firestorms existed where people knew 
women and children were still in them; the Phoenix program was in 
place, which was nothing more than an organized assassination program.
  I do not think we need to debate that because Sam Brown does not 
believe they ought to be and that is not what he was trying to say. 
That is not what he was trying to say. I want the Senator from Arizona 
and my other colleagues, respectfully, to listen to what Sam Brown says 
about that. He wrote me a letter explaining it.
  The letter says:

       Dear Senator Kerry: I'd like to take this opportunity to 
     respond to many of the charges that have been made about me 
     and my activities in opposition to the war in Vietnam.
       I was an early and outspoken opponent of American 
     involvement in the war in Vietnam. My efforts for many years 
     involved organizing peaceful protests designed to influence 
     the political leaders in our country to end the Vietnam War. 
     Like any person, and particularly a young person, my feelings 
     sometimes got the better of my judgement. During the late 
     1960s and 1970s, there were times during which I was deeply 
     angered at the actions of my government; actions, such as the 
     secret bombing of Cambodia, which I did not think met the 
     high ideals and aspirations of our great nation. In my 
     frustration and anger, I almost certainly on some occasions 
     used language that was intemperate and overreaching. I regret 
     those occasions and apologize to those who were, and are, 
     offended by my language.
       As you know, my attitude and actions were designed to 
     broaden the base of opposition to the war--to reach out to 
     those people who may have been against the war but were 
     offended by the more extreme elements of the anti-war 
     movement. The article which I wrote in August 1970 for The 
     Washington Monthly was intended to be an argument against 
     extremism and polarization and for moderation and 
     temperance--for political action and long-term political 
     change both to end the war and bring about national 
     reconciliation. In retrospect and with the advantage of 
     twenty-four years of hindsight, I can see that those who 
     disagreed with me--as well as others--might find the language 
     about ``war criminals'' to be insensitive and inappropriate. 
     I was, of course, referring to those in our government who 
     ordered and, subsequently attempted to cover-up, the bombing 
     of Cambodia. At no time did I mean to impugn the integrity of 
     patriotism of those courageous individuals--such as 
     yourself--who served in or fought in Vietnam.
       I understand that some Senators have also raised questions 
     about my participation in the Democratic National Convention 
     in 1968. As I explained in my answers to the questions 
     submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was 
     there as the National Volunteer Coordinator of the McCarthy 
     for President campaign. I worked most of the time at the 
     Convention Center and stayed with other McCarthy campaign 
     staff at the Hilton Hotel. My job was to win votes for 
     Senator McCarthy; demonstrations were not helpful in this 
     regard and I both discouraged and did not participate in 
     them.
       I hope that my work an my thoughts can be read in their 
     context both in time--the turbulent late 60's and early 
     70's--and in my life, which has been dedicated to nonviolent 
     political expression and change within the American political 
     system.
       Thank you for the opportunity to address these charges and 
     for your support. I deeply appreciate it.
           Sincerely,
                                               Sam W. Brown, Jr.  

  Madam President, I really think we ought to move away in this debate 
from what Sam Brown said about the intelligence community and what Sam 
said with respect to the war. Those are not relevant here. Those really 
are not relevant here.
  The U.S. Senate should not lynch a nominee on the basis of his 
exercise of his constitutional rights. I understand that some of my 
colleagues bitterly disagree with the views that he held. But that is 
our system.
  The question with respect to his qualifications for this job is not 
whether or not he expressed views, which I might add turned out to be 
correct. I mean, if you want to make a test of judgment, Sam Brown's 
judgment was correct, and ultimately even Richard Nixon adopted his 
judgment, and even Henry Kissinger adopted his judgment, which was that 
we had to get out. Only they did it for a lot of wrong reasons. Sam did 
it for the right reasons.
  I would respectfully suggest if you are going to make a judgment 
about character, make a judgment about this man's character as a young 
man who gave up time in his life to stand up for something he believed 
in. How many people in America take the time to do that? How many of my 
colleagues making judgments on him took the time to do that?
  This man had the courage to go out and organize people in America in 
the best standards of American political activity. He tried to affect 
elections. And now we are going to come back with a 1994 political 
correctness standard that somehow holds him accountable for that 
youthful and, I might add, morally courageous endeavor.
  Madam President, you also ought to measure what kind of skill it took 
to do what he did to balance the extraordinary array of disparate 
elements of America that were fighting and pushing and pulling, the 
sectarian interests which he criticized so vociferously that pulled at 
this process, and somehow he pulled it off. He put together the largest 
demonstration in the history of this country from city to city to city.
  I would say those are the kind of organizational and advocacy skills 
that you want inside your Government, not outside of it.
  It is just that some of my colleagues do not happen to agree with 
what he stood for, even though it turned out to be the majority 
position of the United States of America. He was ahead of his time.
  As I said, I think he used some language that I do not like, too. I 
will say to my colleague from Colorado I think Sam Brown said some 
things that were overzealous. I think they were occasionally 
intemperate. I think a lot of us did on occasion. I am sure a lot of my 
colleagues have done that on occasion--said something that it later 
turned out maybe they regret or think they went a little bit too far.
  But what has he done in 24 years? I heard the Senator, I think from 
South Carolina, talking about how this guy was a Socialist or 
something. This is absolutely extraordinary to me.
  If you look at his curricula and look at what he has done with his 
life, you will notice that in 1970, right after he finished protesting 
the war, he did not go off and do some crazy kind of ``socialist'' 
things. Do you know what he did? He became a full-fledged American 
capitalist, I would say to my friend from South Carolina. He became the 
vice president of a shoe company, and he was an entrepreneur out in the 
American business world at a time, I might add, when entrepreneurs did 
not hold a lot of stock amongst young Americans. Sam Brown went out and 
became part of a company. And then he ran for treasurer of his State, 
and the citizens of his State made him treasurer. He became involved in 
more businesses subsequent to that, and he has been successful in those 
businesses.
  Now, let us look for a moment at what we are talking about here, 
because I hope my colleagues will remain focused on what is really at 
stake in this debate.
  Sam Brown has this job. The vote that we take here does not affect 
his having the job. It only affects the title with which he will 
execute this job, another reason to question what is really going on in 
this debate.
  This is a job where in the executive office you have five people: The 
Ambassador, a deputy chief of mission, the executive officer, two 
secretaries. He has three political-economic officers, and a political-
economic section head. He has five political-military people; a section 
head, three officers and a secretary. He has an Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency chief to advise him with four other officers. He has 
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff: a brigadier general, four officers and 
a secretary. He has five from the Office of Secretary of Defense 
including four officers. He has two public affairs officers.
  In other words, if you look at the job, this guy has about as much 
input directly to him as former President Ronald Reagan, who had no 
military experience, no experience with arms control, no experience 
with any of the things on the list that the Senator from Colorado 
listed had. There was a long list of things, and he said ``no 
qualifications.'' Ronald Reagan did not meet one of those 
qualifications, and my friend thought he ought to be commander in chief 
and the major implementer of policy.
  Sam Brown does not come close to that in responsibility. What does 
CSCE do? It is involved in preventive missions, sanctions against 
missions, seminars and meetings, elections monitoring, and with the 
high commissioner on national minorities, the office for democratic 
institutions on human rights, and the Minsk group negotiations, and 
Nagorno-Karabakh.
  These are very much what Sam Brown's skills are--advocacy, the 
electoral process, the promotion of participation in the democratic 
process. And what is interesting is that, notwithstanding that the 
Senator from Colorado does not think he is qualified, every one of the 
people who held the job before him do think he is qualified. And is not 
that interesting? Is it not interesting that everyone of the people who 
held the job before, none of them had military experience. Not only did 
they not have military experience, but Max Kampelman, who was Ronald 
Reagan's appointee and who distinguished himself, was a conscientious 
objector. Was there one voice raised on the Republican side of the 
aisle to suggest that Max Kampelman, conscientious objector, could not 
negotiate with the Soviets? But he did one hell of a job, one hell of a 
job, and he had no military experience.
  Why do not we listen to what Max Kampelman says since he was Ronald 
Reagan's appointee? Let me read you what he says in a letter to the 
chairman of the committee.
       I write to endorse the nomination and urge your committee 
     to act favorably and expeditiously on it.

  I am going to skip a couple of parts just to try to move along here. 
He says:

       I did not know Mr. Brown until a few months ago when he 
     came to my office to introduce himself and discuss my views 
     as to his anticipated responsibilities. I had heard his name 
     mentioned during the 1960's in ways that impressed me 
     unfavorably. It was, therefore, refreshing for me to discuss 
     my personal reactions with him fully and frankly when we met. 
     I have looked upon the radicalism of some youth in the 1960's 
     as destructive to our society and I considered leaders of the 
     radical youth movement at the time to be immature, 
     irresponsible and shortsighted.
       When we talked, I learned from Mr. Brown he had come to 
     conclusions similar to my own during the late sixties and 
     early seventies and had openly and publicly acknowledged a 
     change of direction of his beliefs about the direction 
     American foreign policy should take.

  And he goes on in support of Sam Brown.
  Let me read what Richard Schifter, special assistant to the President 
and counselor, says. Richard Schifter was Assistant Secretary of State 
for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. He also served as President 
Bush's Ambassador to the CSCE after Max Kampelman and was involved in 
the negotiations of the 1989 document which concluded the Vienna CSCE 
meeting. He was appointed by President Bush. So here is what President 
Bush's own appointee says. I am going to again skip a little.

       I have had a number of meetings with Mr. Brown to discuss 
     the current state of CSCE affairs. He struck me as 
     intelligent, competent, and energetic. He has succeeded in 
     mastering the subject matter and is clearly committed to the 
     task of representing the United States effectively in the 
     CSCE setting. He is, in my view, excellently qualified to 
     perform the task of U.S. Ambassador to CSCE.

  Let me share with you now what Warren Zimmermann said.

       As a former Chief of Delegation to a major CSCE Review 
     Meeting (1986-89), I have a strong interest in the future of 
     the CSCE process and in an effective and committed U.S. 
     participation in it.
       It's this interest which compels me to write you on behalf 
     of Sam Brown, who has appeared before the Committee as the 
     Clinton administration's nominee for U.S. Representative to 
     the CSCE in Vienna. American participation in CSCE has been 
     blessed with many talented representatives, the most recent 
     of whom is Ambassador John Kornblum, our most recent 
     representative in Vienna. I believe that Sam Brown will be in 
     this distinguished tradition.* * * 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 served 33 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, and have 
     always felt our diplomacy was enriched by qualified 
     ambassadorial appointments from the private sector.* * * I 
     strongly believe he meets the standard of excellence which we 
     should insist on for our diplomats.

  So, Madam President, rather than get mired in the partisan politics--
and, I might add, ancient ideological politics of the 1960's and the 
1970's which really ought to be history in this country because of the 
issues and problems that we face--rather than get mired in that, let us 
listen to the experts, not people who have a political ax to grind, but 
people who have been at the CSCE, people who understand what the 
responsibilities are, people that President Bush appointed, people that 
President Reagan appointed, people who have proven their ability to 
deliver, all of whom say Sam Brown is qualified.
  Now, we also hear from my colleagues that somehow what happened at 
ACTION disqualifies him. But, once again, my colleagues kind of play a 
fine game here with the truth. Because they hold up a report of the 
House Appropriations staff and they use what is said in that report as 
an example, somehow, of shortcomings.
  Well, our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, whose integrity has never 
been questioned in this institution, came to the floor yesterday to 
point out that he sat on that committee. He was there. He sat through 
those hearings. Here is precisely what he said.

       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 as many 
     hearings 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.* * * Everyone was 
     put under oath, somewhat unusual at our hearings. I remember 
     bringing in the auditors and the inspector general, and I 
     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.

  So, Madam President, in point of fact, the committee did not adopt 
the report that keeps being cited on the floor as the disqualifier of 
Sam Brown's organizational skills.
  What is interesting is, you do not hear people from his companies 
saying he cannot manage something. You did not hear allegations that he 
did not manage the Treasurer's Office. You did not hear allegations he 
was not able to manage the moratorium. Certainly Richard Nixon would 
not tell you it was not well managed.
  So, Madam President, I suggest what you have going on here is a very 
unfortunate process of a verbal lynching for an event or events and 
attitudes that existed 25, 30 years ago, which have been explained in 
their context and, in some instances, apologized for in their context.
  What you really ought to measure is the quality of this individual's 
commitment to our country and his patriotism.
  Patriotism comes, I think, in a lot of different forms. Patriotism is 
not always just marching down the road to whatever the conventional 
wisdom is. Patriotism sometimes is opposing that conventional wisdom. 
And sometimes I believe that takes maybe even a little more qualities 
of courage and moral conviction. And Sam Brown evidenced that.
  I believe he is, for that reason, the very kind of person that you 
want at the CSCE standing up for this country, advocating our moral 
standards, advocating our interests in human rights, and advocating the 
qualities of democracy and freedom which he lived by in the course of 
his opposition to the war.
  You cannot come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and find this man 
having ripped apart the country or torn apart the fundamental goals of 
this country in any way. You cannot find him having taken part in any 
of the demonstrations which many of us were opposed to. You cannot find 
him having engaged in that horrendous excess of rhetoric that governed 
most of the dialog of some of the people of that period of time.
  Sam Brown always drove to the center. He always tried to produce a 
result. And it is perfectly understandable that this man would be upset 
that he, himself, was spied on in his own country by one of his own 
institutions of Government. And I think my colleagues ought to be 
sensitive and understanding and forgiving of any expressions of anger 
with respect to that.
  With respect to the comments in New York and so forth, what he was 
referring to was the end of the war. A lot of people felt good about 
that. To twist those comments somehow into support for North Vietnam--
which he never, ever evidenced or spoke--does a disservice to the 
quality of his exercise of his constitutional freedoms.
  I hope my colleagues, when we vote, will end this game and will 
permit the President to appoint a person who is eminently qualified. In 
the mind of the Senator from Colorado, he does not qualify on the 
Senator's checklist. That checklist is, in and of itself, a phony 
construction. No one ever said you needed those qualifications. If 
those are the qualifications, none of the prior people would have gone. 
So why do we suddenly hold him to a different standard?
  The test here is whether or not he has the qualities of judgment, of 
character, the commitment to our country, the commitment to principle, 
a moral conviction, an ability and a skill to be able to move debate 
and bring people together. And he has evidenced that, Madam President, 
throughout his life. We should not take that life and now make it into 
a fiction on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I commend and congratulate the Senator 
from Massachusetts on a remarkably effective speech. I recall those 
years that he is talking about, in the Vietnam days, when there were 
many who protested--who were early opponents of the war. I count myself 
as one. I remember the Senator from Massachusetts, who has had a 
distinguished record in Vietnam, taking the lead in many of the 
protests, and doing it very effectively and well.
  I remember the convention of 1968. I was there in the drafting 
committee, in the platform committee. Vietnam was a key issue at the 
convention, and there was a spirit of confrontation on both sides of 
the issue. There was no desire there for consensus.
  Sam Brown's activities at that convention have been a subject of 
discussion. I would note that I do not recall seeing Sam Brown at that 
convention.
  So I think in making a judgment on Sam Brown, one must think back to 
what the climate was at that time. As Senator Kerry said, now we are 
getting into a question of political correctness. If you were an early 
opponent of the Vietnam war, as Sam Brown was, that was not politically 
correct. If you were a late opponent, as eventually President Nixon 
was, then it was OK. I do not believe it fair to make judgments on Sam 
Brown's suitability for this job based on political correctness.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator from Colorado wants the floor.
  I just wanted to ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
letters I read, the curriculum vitae, and a letter from former 
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 11, 1994.
     Senator Dennis DeConcini,
     Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator DeConcini: I am happy to respond to you about 
     the quotation attributed to me in the Penthouse Magazine from 
     December, 1977 provided by minority members of the Foreign 
     Relations Committee.
       On the face of it, this is a pretty stupid thing for me to 
     have said--if I was quoted accurately. The break in 
     continuity--the fact that the response does not seem to 
     ``track''--suggests to me that there is something left out of 
     the quote, but, as it stands, it does not accurately reflect 
     my views now, nor my views then. Nonetheless, I have tried to 
     understand how I might have said anything like this. I hope 
     that some understanding of context will be helpful.
       During my confirmation hearings in 1977 I was questioned 
     very closely, primarily by Senator Humphrey, about the Peace 
     Corps and its independence from the intelligence activities 
     of the country. I said I understood the legal obligation for 
     separation and would rigidly enforce this requirement. 
     Although I had been assured from Congressional sources that 
     this separation was being observed, nonetheless, the rumors 
     persisted that the CIA was somehow ``using'' the Peace Corps. 
     It was very important for me to be able to say to volunteers 
     and to foreign governments alike that I would be attentive to 
     this and would resist any breach of this wall. Consequently, 
     I regularly pointed out that I had no contact with the CIA.
       A second contextual issue is that the CIA had, shortly 
     before this period in the mid 70's, covertly funded domestic 
     and foreign student and intellectual organizations. There was 
     therefore great skepticism about any assurance that it was 
     not involved with the Peace Corps. The tougher I was the more 
     credible was my assurance that the Peace Corps was 
     independent and free from interference by the intelligence 
     agencies.
       Finally, in the late 60's and early 70's the CIA had 
     apparently engaged in intelligence gathering focused on 
     domestic groups opposed to the war in Vietnam. This was the 
     subject of litigation at the time of the interview. Evidence 
     gathered in that case indicated I had been the object of CIA 
     surveillance in the 1960's when I was active in the anti-war 
     movement. Consequently, I had strong personal feelings about 
     the abuses of their authority.
       None of this context can excuse the statement attributed to 
     me, which does not reflect my views on the legitimate 
     intelligence activities of the U.S. government. U.S. security 
     demands that we have current and accurate information on 
     which to base policy decisions. This requires gathering 
     information from covert as well as public sources, through 
     technology as well as from people. It requires that the 
     information received, from whatever source, be integrated 
     fully with the policy-making process which it is designed to 
     serve.
       My views about America are more accurately summarized later 
     in the same interview when I said, ``I really think America 
     is a terrific place . . . . I think people are prepared to 
     give up a lot, to sacrifice, to quit consuming so 
     destructively, for a common purpose . . . there are in 
     incredible number of people ready to listen to sensible 
     things and to relate to each other in some warm, decent, 
     giving way.'' It is that vision and those values which I 
     bring to this position.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sam W. Brown, Jr.
                                  ____

                                             Fried, Frank, Harris,


                                           Shriver & Jacobson,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1994.
     Senator Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that you and the 
     members of your committee are now considering the nomination 
     of Mr. Samuel W. Brown, Jr. to serve as Head of Delegation to 
     the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), 
     with the rank of Ambassador.
       I write to endorse that nomination and to urge that your 
     committee act favorably and expeditiously on it. CSCE has a 
     vital role to play in restoring and strengthening confidence 
     within Europe in these days of uncertainty and danger on that 
     continent. That development requires leadership on the part 
     of the United States and I am persuaded that Mr. Brown has 
     the energy, commitment and understanding to help our country 
     provide that leadership.
       I did not know Mr. Brown until a few months ago when he 
     came to my office to introduce himself and discuss my views 
     as to his anticipated responsibilities. I had heard his name 
     mentioned during the 1960s in ways that impressed me 
     unfavorably. It was, therefore, refreshing for me to discuss 
     my personal reactions with him fully and frankly when we met. 
     I have looked upon the radicalism of some youth in the 1960s 
     as destructive to our society and I considered leaders of the 
     radical youth movement of the time to be immature, 
     irresponsible and shortsighted.
       When we talked, I learned from Mr. Brown that he had come 
     to conclusions similar to my own during the late 60s and 
     early 70s and had openly and publicly acknowledged a change 
     of direction in his beliefs about the direction American 
     foreign policy should take. I considered that change to be to 
     Mr. Brown's credit and was pleased to learn more from him 
     about his career and his dedication to the public interest.
       You are aware of my own intense interest in CSCE beginning 
     with 1980 when you and I and many of your colleagues saw the 
     opportunity to undermine the influence of Soviet 
     totalitarianism in Europe using the Helsinki process as a 
     means to accomplish that end. We were successful in Madrid 
     under Presidents Carter and Reagan. I returned to the process 
     for short periods of time on five different occasions under 
     President Bush. The CSCE Copenhagen, Geneva and Moscow 
     meetings, where I served as the American Head of Delegation, 
     served to end Soviet influence once and for all and, for the 
     first time, specified in detail that European stability and 
     security depended upon political democracy and its attendant 
     freedoms. I considered it highly regrettable that our country 
     did not continue to provide the essential leadership 
     necessary for Europe and the Helsinki process to withstand 
     the threat to peace and security that stemmed from the 
     breakup of Yugoslavia. Mr. Brown has persuaded me that he 
     understands the CSCE and its potential for serving our 
     national interest. He understands the challenge and is 
     prepared to help our country provide the necessary 
     leadership. He has the skills and the abilities to do that.
       I do hope this letter is helpful to you.
       My warmest best wishes to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Max M. Kampelman.
                                  ____



                                    National Security Council,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am addressing this letter to you on 
     behalf of Sam Brown, who has been nominated to the position 
     of United States Ambassador to the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). I served as Chairman of the 
     United States delegations to the CSCE's Ottawa Human Rights 
     Meeting in 1985 and the Oslo Democracy Meeting in 1991. I 
     also followed CSCE events closely as Assistant Secretary of 
     State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and was 
     closely involved in the negotiation of the 1989 document 
     which concluded the Vienna CSCE meeting.
       It is in light of such past experience that I have had a 
     number of meetings with Mr. Sam Brown to discuss the current 
     state of CSCE affairs. He struck me as intelligent, 
     competent, and energetic. He has succeeded in mastering the 
     subject matter and is clearly committed to the task of 
     representing the United States effectively in the CSCE 
     setting. He is, in my view, excellently qualified to perform 
     the task of U.S. Ambassador to CSCE.
       I am told that questions have been raised about Mr. Brown's 
     suitability in light of his activities as an opponent of the 
     war in Vietnam twenty-five years ago. It can reasonably be 
     said that Mr. Brown's early views on Vietnam have no 
     relevance to his suitability for the CSCE ambassadorship 
     today. Nevertheless, as I held sharply differing views from 
     those which Sam Brown espoused twenty-five years ago and 
     remembering the publicity which surrounded him then, 
     questions about the past did cross my mind when I heard of 
     his nomination.
       It was, therefore, not surprising that at our very first 
     meeting the issue of Sam Brown's views during the Vietnam era 
     did come up. He spoke candidly about them and his fundamental 
     change of political outlook in the years that followed. On 
     the basis of my detailed discussions with him, I am 
     completely satisfied that today Sam Brown's political outlook 
     reflects the American mainstream, views which we tend to 
     label ``centrist.''
       It is my sincere hope that Sam Brown will be judged by the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the United States 
     Senate on the basis of what he stands for in 1994 rather than 
     what he stood for many years ago. On that basis, I do hope 
     his nomination will be confirmed.
           Sincerely,

                                             Richard Schifter,

                                          Special Assistant to the
                                          President and Counselor.
                                  ____

                                                   April 13, 1994.
     Senators Claiborne Pell and Jesse Helms,
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Pell and Helms: As a former Chief of 
     Delegation to a major CSCE Review Meeting (the 1986-89 Vienna 
     Follow-Up Meeting of the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe), I have a strong interest in the 
     future of the CSCE process and in an effective and committed 
     U.S. participation in it.
       It's this interest which compels me to write you on behalf 
     of Sam Brown, who has appeared before the Committee as the 
     Clinton administration's nominee for U.S. Representative to 
     the CSCE in Vienna. American participation in CSCE has been 
     blessed with many talented representatives, the most recent 
     of whom is Ambassador John Kornblum, our most recent 
     representative in Vienna. I believe that Sam Brown will be in 
     this distinguished tradition. During our several in-depth 
     talks since his nomination, he has impressed us with his 
     mastery of the complexities of the issues; his commitment to 
     human rights to military security, and to the other basic 
     elements of the CSCE process; and his creativity in seeking 
     new ways for CSCE to be effective in the post-cold war world. 
     I might add that CSCE experts on the NSC staff and in the 
     State Department have told me that they share my high opinion 
     of Mr. Brown.
       I served 33 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, and have 
     always felt that our diplomacy was enriched by qualified 
     ambassadorial appointments from the private sector. From my 
     admittedly recent acquaintance with Sam Brown, I strongly 
     believe he meets the standard of excellence on which we 
     should insist for our diplomats. I hope the committee will do 
     all in its power to ensure his confirmation by the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                Warren Zimmermann.
                                  ____


                           Biographic Summary

       Name: Samuel W. Brown, Jr.
       Position for which considered: Rank of Ambassador during 
     tenure of service as Head of Delegation to the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).
       Present position: General Partner, Centennial Partners, 
     Ltd., Berkeley, California.
       Legal residence: California.
       Office address: 2737 Claremont Boulevard, Berkeley, 
     California 94705.
       Date/place of birth: July 27, 1943, Council Bluffs, Iowa.
       Home address: Berkeley, California.
       Marital status: Married.
       Name of spouse: Alison Val Teal.
       Names of children: Nicholas Teal Brown, Teal Valentine 
     Brown, and Willa Hammitt Brown.
       Education: B.A., University of Redlands, 1965, M.A., 
     Rutgers University, 1966, Graduate Study, Harvard University 
     Divinity School, 1966-1968, Fellow--John F. Kennedy Institute 
     of Politics, Harvard University, 1969.
       Language ability: None.
       Military experience: None.
       Work experience:
       1981-Present--General Partner, Centennial Partners, Ltd.--
     Colorado and California.
       1977-1981--Director, ACTION Agency, Washington, D.C.
       1975-1977--Treasurer, State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.
       1970-1974--Vice President, Brown's Better Shoes, Denver, 
     Colorado.
       1972-1973--Consultant FUND for Neighborhood Development, 
     Washington, D.C.
       1970-1971--Author, Random House.
       1969-1970--Director, Vietnam Moratorium Committee, 
     Washington, D.C.
       1968--Consultant, U.S. Peace Corps.
       1967-1968--Volunteer Coordinator, McCarthy for President, 
     Washington, D.C.
       Awards/honors: Fellow--Eagleton Institute of Politics, 
     Rutgers University, 1965-1966, Rockefeller Fellow--Harvard 
     Divinity School, 1966-1968, Fellow--John F. Kennedy School, 
     Harvard University, 1969, Doctor of Public Administration--
     University of Redlands, Redlands, California, 1978.
       Publications: ``Why Are We Still In Vietnam?'', Editor, 
     Random House, 1969, ``Storefront Organizing'', Pyramid Press, 
     1972, ``The Legacy of Vietnam'', Contributor, ``The Defeat of 
     the Anti-War Movement'', New York University Press, 1976, 
     Washington Monthly, ``The Politics of Peace'', August, 1970, 
     LIFE, ``Guest Privilege: Same Old Gang Turns Up in 
     Washington'', January 29, 1971, New Republic, ``Snow Job in 
     Colorado'', January 29, 1972, Public Welfare, ``Self-help: An 
     Old Idea Whose Time Has Come'', Winter, 1981.
       Organizational affiliations: Commonwealth Club, World 
     Affairs Council of Northern California, Global Water, Council 
     Member 1982-1986, East Bay Economic Development Advisory 
     Board, 1990-present, Earth Day 1990, National Board Member, 
     Environmental Defense Fund Advisory Board Member, Sierra Club 
     Life Member, March 1987, KBDI-TV, Public Television, Board 
     Member, 1987-1990, YMCA of Denver, Colorado Legal Services 
     Foundation, 1982-1986, Denver International Film Festival, 
     Board/Chairman, 1981-1990, Signet Society, Harvard 
     University.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   April 14, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Claiborne: It has come to my attention that Sam Brown 
     has been nominated to be Head of Delegation to the Conference 
     on Security and Cooperation in Europe with the rank of 
     Ambassador. When I heard this I was very pleased. I have 
     known Sam for more than twenty-five years and he would serve 
     his country well in the post.
       My acquaintance with him began in a most unusual way. When 
     I was Secretary of Defense he became a friend of my children 
     and eventually of mine. This was during the Vietnam War. 
     Unlike some critics of the war who tried to convince others 
     of the rightness of their position by shouting down their 
     opponents. I found Sam to be thoughtful, balanced and deeply 
     concerned about the consequences of the war--both strategic 
     and moral. I always found him to be motivated by an abiding 
     concern for our country and its best interests. While we 
     disagreed, we grew to respect each other. After that I saw 
     him occasionally at the Aspen Institute or at meetings of a 
     foundation board on which we both sat. after the publication 
     of the so-called Pentagon Papers we once again discussed the 
     war and again I found him well-informed, thoughtful and 
     serious. During his years at ACTION--and since--we have kept 
     in touch.
       I tell you this because it has also come to my attention 
     that some members of the Senate have questioned Sam's role 
     and motivation during the years of the Vietnam War and 
     afterwards. I know him to be a patriotic and thoughtful 
     person and any allegation to the contrary is totally 
     baseless. Moreover, I know that he thinks carefully and well 
     about the long-term interests of the country. He will do an 
     admirable job in any position requiring careful analysis of 
     difficult situations, strong interpersonal skills and real 
     leadership ability. The post is particularly appropriate 
     given Sam's long-standing commitment to the expansion of 
     human rights. I hope that this appointment can go forward 
     quickly so that our country can have the benefit of Sam's 
     skills in this job for which he is so well suited.
       With best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert S. McNamara.

  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished chairman for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison], is here on the floor and I believe may be willing to 
share a few thoughts with us about this. I wanted to simply make a 
couple of comments about the very fine speech we have just heard from 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. They are meant as 
clarifying comments.
  First of all, the Senator has referred to previous people who had 
held this position, talking about the qualifications of Sam Brown. My 
impression is--perhaps the Senator will correct me if I am not 
correct--but my impression is that Ambassador Kornblum is not among 
those, the immediate predecessor in this job. At least my understanding 
is that Ambassador Kornblum has not issued a letter indicating he felt 
Mr. Brown is qualified.
  Second, Madam President, while there is discussion, I think, with 
regard to the quotes--and I think it is appropriate to look at them in 
context--at least it is my impression that looking at the quote with 
regard to intelligence agencies, looking at it in context, far from 
helping Sam Brown, perhaps hurts his cause. Let me be specific in that.
  The quote I was referring to is:

       I take second place to no one in hatred of intelligence 
     agencies.

  That is from the Penthouse interview of Sam Brown. The question was 
one with regard to the use of the Peace Corps and the CIA, as posed by 
Penthouse. Sam Brown's paragraph prior to that says this:

       I sent the student association a letter and asked it to 
     send any evidence it might have about the Peace Corps-CIA 
     links in South America. If it was true, I'd go and clean out 
     whoever it was. But it was one of those vague allegations 
     that, stated in the 1960's, are still being made. While there 
     haven't been any instances of CIA involvement that we know 
     of, [then the quote] I take second place to no one in my 
     hatred of the intelligence agencies.

  I simply observe this. In this Senator's opinion, the suggestion by 
one who heads the ACTION agency and has supervisory authority over the 
Peace Corps, that any Peace Corps volunteer who had shared intelligence 
information vital to American security with the Central Intelligence 
Agency should be thrown out of the Peace Corps I believe is a disgrace.
  I respect the right of others to disagree, and I can understand how 
others would disagree. But it seems to me if a Peace Corps volunteer 
shared information vital to the security of this Nation, that far from 
being thrown out of the Peace Corps, they should be recognized and 
rewarded.
  Madam President, I also observe that Ambassador Kampelman, far from 
negotiating the Conventional Forces Treaty, simply undertook monitoring 
of it after it had been negotiated by Mr. Woolsey, who is now Director 
of the CIA.
  I think it is important to note the CFCE changed dramatically in 1990 
and 1992. Thus, the qualifications of people who had that post prior to 
adding the military responsibility, or military oversight 
responsibilities, it seems to me appropriately had a different 
background than those who come when they have responsibilities to 
enforce the Open Skies Treaty, or at least monitor it, and the 
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
  Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. I also observe these two people, prior to Ambassador 
Kornblum, and Ambassador Kornblum himself, did have some national 
security experience, which I think is the focal point here.
  Madam President, my intention is to yield to the Senator from Texas 
but, in fairness, I suspect the Senator from Massachusetts may wish the 
floor to respond. I will yield the floor at this point with the 
intention of then yielding to the Senator from Texas as soon as the 
Senator from Massachusetts has finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from Colorado. He 
and I always have, I think, very civil and respectful discourses in 
these matters. But I say to my friend from Colorado, really what he is 
saying about the Peace Corps is to turn fundamentally a blind eye to an 
assiduously sought after separation of entities.
  The Peace Corps is not meant to be an arm of the CIA, nor are any 
other of our quasi-NGO's. Because the minute they become that, they 
lose their effectiveness. That is precisely what Sam Brown was trying 
to preserve--their effectiveness. I am confident that my friend from 
Colorado remembers well the ways in which a whole bunch of people, and 
separate entities, were tarnished by virtue of the ability of other 
countries to point the finger at them and say they are just operatives 
of the CIA; therefore we cannot trust them or we will not let them in 
here or we will not let them do this.
  So what Sam Brown was trying to do was preserve the integrity of the 
Peace Corps, not as an instrument of American ideology, but rather as 
an instrument of our highest principles and moral standards; as a 
purveyor, if you will, of the notion that America was going to show 
people by action how we could have an impact on their lives.
  I ask my friend if he is not, in fact, assigning an expectation to 
Sam Brown that would fly right in the face of that kind of separation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the Senator's observation. Madam President, I 
yield to myself such time as I may consume.
  I might say, I appreciate the Senator's observation. My concern was a 
Peace Corps volunteer, having seen something vital to national 
security, far from being dismissed from the Peace Corps when he or she 
shared that with our intelligence agencies I think should be rewarded. 
That is quite different, obviously, than using them as a direct 
intelligence-gathering operation, which obviously is a whole different 
case and does indeed relate to agreements that we have with other 
countries.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if I may have just 30 seconds?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. If I may just say to the Senator, I know that Sam Brown 
did not intend to deny the notion that people should act in the 
interests of national security. But if you look at the context of the 
question, as well as the answer, the entire context was about the CIA's 
cooption of the Peace Corps. And it was in the context of the cooption 
that he was trying to protect the Peace Corps.
  I am absolutely confident that today Sam Brown would not want to deny 
anybody the ability to protect the vital national security interests of 
this country.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I now yield to the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], 
such time as she may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado. Senator Brown has done an incredible job of 
educating the Senate on this nominee.
  I think he has gone the extra miles to make sure the United States 
and the President of our country does not make a mistake in putting 
someone in a very important and sensitive position who really does not 
belong in that position. Perhaps he belongs in another position, but 
not this one.
  Let us talk about this job. We have heard eloquent debate from the 
Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from New Hampshire, and the 
Senator from Colorado. But let us focus on what this job is: Ambassador 
to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe established the 
retreat of the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe. In the Wall Street 
Journal today, there is a quote from then Defense Secretary Richard 
Cheney in 1991:

       With implementation of the CFE Treaty, for the first time 
     since the end of World War II, the Soviets would be denied 
     the ability to mount an offensive threat in Europe.

  That is what this treaty is.
  Mr. President, this treaty restricts Russia from amassing troops in 
the flank regions of Europe. Now there are requests pending today from 
Russia to relax parts of that treaty that may have a long-term impact 
on the future of those Eastern European countries which are now 
struggling with democracy and struggling to make it.
  So what kind of Ambassador do we want negotiating these points? That 
is really the question before us.
  I want to reiterate some of the quotes that we have heard from Sam 
Brown.
  August 1970:

       Most of us who have worked to end the war for some time 
     believe that any semblance of a military victory in Vietnam 
     would be disastrous for the United States.

  A quote that you have heard several times.
  1977:

       I take second place to nobody in my hatred of the 
     intelligence agencies.

  1970:

       On the night of the Cambodian invasion, part of me wanted 
     to blow up buildings, and I decided that those who have waged 
     war really should be treated as war criminals.

  Mr. President, these things were said at a time when the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from New 
Hampshire were serving in Vietnam. Their lives were in harm's way--they 
and other men and women from America. We had someone saying those 
things who now may be an Ambassador who will be negotiating the 
relaxation of a treaty that we have with our European allies to try to 
make sure that democracy can make it in Eastern Europe.
  Senator Kerry was so eloquent when he said that Mr. Brown stood for 
his beliefs and he admired him for that. I just want to say I admire 
the Senator from Massachusetts for standing for his beliefs for going 
and fighting for our country and doing his duty. I admire him for that. 
I think he, of all people, should be looking at this ambassadorial rank 
in the context of someone who will be negotiating on very important 
matters for our country.
  In the Wall Street Journal of May 17, it says that, ``A prominent 
anti-Vietnam war activist of the 1960's, Mr. Brown was a leading 
student organizer for Senator Eugene McCarthy's 1960 Presidential 
campaign. Then he backed Jimmy Carter. ``During the Democratic Party's 
platform committee deliberations that year, he organized an effort to 
have the party endorse unconditional amnesty for Vietnam'' antiwar 
protesters. Even in those days, that proposal was voted down by the 
Democratic Committee 14 to 1. ``Once in office as Mr. Carter's Director 
of ACTION, Mr. Brown made an early mark by attending a 1977 welcoming 
reception in honor of the Vietnam delegation to the United Nations. 
After a rousing speech by Ngo Dien, deputy foreign minister, in which 
he excoriated the `American imperialists' and their `bloody colonial 
war,' Mr. Brown told a New York Times reporter covering the event that 
he was `deeply moved.' ``What can you say when the kinds of things that 
15 years of your life were wrapped up in are suddenly before you?''
  The Rocky Mountain News on May 20 in an editorial saying this is not 
the man for this job. The article says:

       * * * congressional opposition has been portrayed as just 
     old-guard anxiety that a sixties enemy of ``American 
     imperialism'' could romp at will through the corridors of 
     Western military diplomacy.
       The real stakes are much higher, and have little directly 
     to do with Mr. Brown's radical past. If the Senate confirms 
     Brown next week as Ambassador to the Conference on Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe, it will place a man with no 
     experience in arms control, military and strategic studies, 
     consular posts or international diplomacy in charge of vital 
     negotiations involving U.S. security in Europe.
       One might as well have turned over D-Day operations to the 
     head of the Work Projects Administration. The crown of 
     Brown's career was a dubious run as Jimmy Carter's director 
     of ACTION/Peace Corps, which was censured during his tenure 
     by the House Appropriations Committee for wide-ranging 
     mismanagement, waste and improprieties.

  It is relevant, as the Rocky Mountain News says, what this man's 
position is going to be.
  It reminds me of our Armed Services Committee hearing that we had on 
another nomination with some of the same background and quotes. It was 
Martin Halperin for Assistant Secretary of Defense. During more than 5 
hours of testimony, quote after quote after quote of Mr. Halperin came 
back, many in the same vein saying that he just did not believe 
intelligence had a place in a democracy.
  These people are good people, I am sure. I am sure they are people 
who do stand up for their views. They have said they have changed their 
views, in some instances. Maybe they wish they had not said anything 
quite so forceful. But as one of my colleagues on the committee said, 
``If this were a nomination for Assistant Secretary of HUD, perhaps I 
could support it. But we are talking about Assistant Secretary of 
Defense.''
  We are talking about a treaty negotiator who is going to determine 
whether we are going to relax a treaty provision to allow Russia to 
amass troops on the borders of Eastern Europe.
  So the question really is relevant: What kind of person do you want 
in this job? Not what kind of person is this, but what kind of person 
do we want in this job.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KERRY. Has the Senator read the full article that she quoted from 
in the Washington Monthly?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, Mr. President, I would say that I have read most 
of the article; yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Could I ask the Senator what in that article is radical 
and what particularly is radical about suggesting that the ``new peace 
leadership should be composed of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, 
mayors, businessmen, all the straight people who are willing to make a 
firm and unequivocal commitment; the spokesman should be the most 
visible and attractive to middle America who can speak intelligently 
about the war with strength rather than condescension?'' What is 
radical about that? What is radical about Sam Brown working within the 
political system?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts reading 
that very tacet part of that article. There is nothing radical at all 
about what the Senator just read. But I do think we are talking about a 
job that is going to have very great consequences for the people of 
this country, the military of this country, and particularly the people 
of Eastern Europe we are trying to help get their struggling 
democracies going. I think you have to look in the whole context of 
what a person says and what that person's background is for this 
particular job.
  Mr. KERRY. Could the Senator help me understand----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the parts of this article that were read by 
the Senator from Massachusetts are fine, but there are other parts of 
this article and other articles that show this is not a man who is fit 
for the job to which he has been nominated.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator inform me what part of the article----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just say, if I could finish and then I will 
yield the floor, that if the Senate refuses to allow Mr. Brown to hold 
the ambassadorial rank, I would encourage the President to find someone 
who can suitably represent America, someone who can go to the 
conference in Europe with the appropriate stature and with the 
appropriate backup of the Senate. If you look at the overall background 
and record of Sam Brown, he is not a person who is qualified or fit for 
this particular job. I would encourage the President to take that into 
account and get someone who can serve with the full backing of the 
Senate.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would just like to take one moment. I 
know the Senator from Arizona wants to speak. If I could just have 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, what has just happened is characteristic of what I 
said earlier. I appreciate the respect the Senator from Texas has shown 
me, and I appreciate her comments to me. But to use the word 
``radical'' about Sam Brown is to fall into the trap that I talked 
about earlier which is simply inaccurate; it is wrong. It is verbal 
political lynching in this Chamber. There is nothing radical in this 
article. In fact, Sam Brown says after he makes that comment about 
feeling how he felt the night of the Cambodia invasion--the quote about 
war criminals--he says, ``But despite past frustrations and failures, I 
think political self-discipline is precisely what is necessary.''
  A couple paragraphs further down he says, ``You work to state the 
peace choice persistently in the most acceptable style until you lose 
that faith permanently. Left sectarianism must be regarded as 
politically foolish.''
  This is a man who is calling radicalism politically foolish and yet 
people are coming to the floor here today to pillory him for having 
participated in nonviolent peaceful protest and having worked as a 
McCarthy delegate, as an organizer for the President of the United 
States and then goes out to become a good entrepreneurial capitalist 
and run a business, become treasurer of his State. This is 
extraordinary in 1994.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I could just have 30 seconds to 
respond to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado controls the time on that side.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have a previous obligation to the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Colorado.
  I just want to say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I think the 
quote, ``I take second place to nobody in my hatred of the intelligence 
agencies'' is radical. Regardless of what else was said in the article, 
many parts of which the Senator has quoted, that is radical. 
Intelligence is a part of this country. It is how we have remained 
strong. It is one of the very important ways that we are able to be 
strong within and also to protect the men and women who are supporting 
our country all over the world. Intelligence is a very important part 
of that.
  I submit to the Senator from Massachusetts that this quote is radical 
and that the quotes along the same line were radical when Morton 
Halperin said them and for that reason the President withdrew his 
nomination. I ask the President once again to withdraw this nomination 
for this particular job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, each Senator will make their own mind up as 
to what they feel is radical or not, but on that subject there is an 
article I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record. It is from 
the Wall Street Journal. The headline is simply: ``For Sam Brown, 
There's No Peace At the Peace Corps. Critics say Ex-`Radical' Acts 
Slowly as Chief of Agency; Brown: `But I Need Time.'''
  The lead is this:

       Meet Sam Brown, member of the establishment.
       Same fellow who declared a decade ago that ``the United 
     States is now the great imperialist-aggressor nation of the 
     world * * *''

  Mr. President, every Member will make up their own mind as to what is 
radical or not but I think Senators can understand how some would think 
that is radical.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           For Sam Brown, There's No Peace at the Peace Corps

                          (By James M. Perry)

       Washington.--Meet Sam Brown, member of the establishment.
       Same fellow who declared a decade ago that ``the United 
     States is now the great imperialist-aggressor nation of the 
     world'' and went on to organize the ``children's crusade'' 
     for Eugene McCarthy in the Democratic presidential primary in 
     New Hampshire in 1968. His victim then was Lyndon Johnson.
       Same fellow, too, who organized and led 500,000 Americans 
     in the Vietnam moratorium march in Washington in 1969. His 
     target then was Richard Nixon.
       Sam Brown ``was armored with unshakable righteousness,'' 
     Theodore H. White wrote. ``And from thousands of similar 
     young people of his good will and his unconscious arrogance, 
     his purity of spirit and his remarkable ability, stems much 
     of the perplexity of future American politics.''


                           perplexing results

       Thes days, U.S. Presidents are no longer targets of Sam 
     Brown's, for now, at age 33, he is working for President 
     Jimmy Carter, and his job is to try to make the Peace Corps 
     work. Nine months ago, Mr. Carter appointed Mr. Brown as 
     director of ACTION, the agency that runs the Peace Corps and 
     the domestic volunteer organizations: VISTA, Foster 
     Grandparents and Senior Companions. ACTION supervises 236,000 
     volunteers in this country and abroad. Its annual budget runs 
     to $190 million.
       The Peace Corps is ACTION's highest priority program, and 
     the President hoped that Mr. Brown would use his good will 
     and his ability to restore the prestige that the corps has 
     lost since its glory days in the 1960s. But a look at the 
     Peace Corps--and its critics--shows that the results so far 
     seem to be as perplexing as Mr. White anticipated.
       Old Peace Corps hands, members of an alumni association 
     that now numbers 66,000, expected a lot from Sam Brown 
     quickly. But, some of them say, he has been cautious and 
     occasionally uncertain. They were disappointed when he 
     refused to go along with recommendations to pull the Peace 
     Corps out of ACTION and establish it as a public corporation.
       They say Mr. Brown hasn't done much about recruiting more 
     volunteers--and better ones. (The corps' strength remains 
     below 6,000, one-third its size a decade ago.) ``Where are 
     the Peace Corps recruiting ads?'' one critic asks. They say 
     the system is still the same one developed during the Nixon 
     years. Volunteers are matched to specific job openings listed 
     by the host countries. Thus, Fiji wants an agronomist with at 
     least one year's experience with legumes. Peace Corps 
     recruiters try to fill the request. The more highly skilled 
     the person they seek, the more likely they are to turn up 
     empty-handed.


                          all the right things

       ``I like Sam, and he says all the right things,'' says 
     Charles Peters, editor of Washington Monthly magazine and a 
     Peace Corps member under President Kennedy and the agency's 
     founding director, Sargent Shriver. ``But the question is, 
     does he have the drive to overcome the bureaucracy the 
     Republicans left behind and restore a sense of excitement and 
     mission to the Peace Corps?''
       Mr. Brown things the criticism is unfair.
       ``People keep saying I'm a radical,'' he says. ``That was 
     my reputation growing out of the McCarthy campaign and the 
     antiwar movement. In fact, though, I'm a very orderly fellow. 
     Whatever reputation I earned, I earned as an organizer. I was 
     the fellow who figured out how many volunteers we needed at 
     each street corner in Nashua, N.H., at an exact time on a 
     certain day.''
       ``Liberals get a bad rap when it comes to administering 
     things. Remember, I was the State Treasurer of Colorado 
     before I came here, and you have to be prudent when you take 
     care of all that money. I want to figure this job out and 
     then get it done. But I need time--time and a fair chance.''
       Mr. Brown is taking the time. He has traveled around the 
     world looking at Peace Corps programs and talking to Peace 
     Corps people. He has conferred with leaders in several of the 
     65 countries in which the Peace Corps operates. When he took 
     over ACTION last February, 20 of the countries were without 
     Peace Corps directors. He has filled the vacancies, almost 
     half of them with women and minority people.
       Mr. Brown looked for more than six months for a director of 
     the Peace Corps, a post that had gone vacant during the 
     Nixon-Ford years. The Peace Corps was then administered 
     within ACTION by an associate director for international 
     operations, and the corps didn't even have its own letterhead 
     stationery. Mr. Brown's choice, finally, was Carolyn R. 
     Payton.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Oklahoma 
such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Nickles].
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to first compliment Senator Brown 
of Colorado for his leadership in opposing this nomination. I join him 
in opposing Sam Brown for the post of Ambassador to the Conference on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe. Senator Brown, I think, has done a 
very good job in exposing some serious flaws that the President has 
made in making this nomination. We do have a responsibility as Senators 
to give advice and consent, and this is an Ambassador-level position.
  I am troubled by Mr. Brown and his past statements and by his past 
actions, both as an antiwar activist and as Director of the agency 
ACTION. In my opinion, he should not be promoted or rewarded with a 
very important position as Ambassador to the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe.
  I do not think there is any question that he was an antiwar activist, 
a radical as many people would say. But I might mention a lot of my 
opposition comes not just out of his antiwar activities and statements. 
I was prepared to read some of the same quotes Senator Hutchison and 
Senator Brown have put in the Record. But maybe I am more troubled by 
his postwar activities. When he was Director of ACTION, he also 
attended a meeting in New York welcoming the Vietnamese delegation to 
the United Nations. And this has been quoted before, but he says:

       I am deeply moved. It is difficult to describe my feelings. 
     What can you say when the kinds of things that 15 years of 
     your life are wrapped up in are suddenly before you?

  That not only was an antiwar activist attending a meeting which, 
according to the press reports--I will just mention what Eric Sevareid 
said of that meeting. He said:

       One newspaper described the gathering as an antiwar 
     movement come together again. It was, rather, that part of 
     the antiwar movement which was not antiwar at all. It was 
     anti the American role in the war and pro Hanoi. Most of 
     those in New York theater were not celebrating peace. They 
     were celebrating the triumph of Communist totalitarianism 
     which is what they had always been working for in the guise 
     of the peace movement.

  Of this incident Mr. Brown now writes:

       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 5 minutes or so. A New 
     York Times reporter saw me as I was leaving the meeting and 
     asked my feelings.

  I am troubled by that statement. I do not think that was totally 
truthful. I am kind of having a hard time seeing how that coincidental 
meeting--he just happened to be strolling by Broadway--would be the 
case. It was the case, he was a Federal employee. It was the case, he 
was Director of ACTION. It was the case, he was representing our 
Government and he was at that meeting. To make some kind of statement, 
well, I just happened to be strolling by, I do not buy that argument.
  And then I look at some of the other actions Mr. Brown as Director of 
ACTION was taking. He headed the Agency. I might mention that Congress 
was controlled by Democrats, and there was an investigation of ACTION 
by the House Appropriations Committee in 1978. They reported--and this 
is in the Congressional Record September 21, 1979, beginning on page 
25674. They conclude with these points:

       Improprieties, mismanagement in the grant selection 
     process, poor training and supervision of volunteers 
     including instances of involvement in political and lobbying 
     activities; replacement of ACTION's independent Inspector 
     General Office with a new Office of Compliance which reported 
     directly to the Director.

  Also quoting:

       Creating the potential for conflict of interest and not in 
     accord with congressional intent. Subsidizing employees' 
     nonofficial travel to Cuba and China. Violations of proper 
     procurement and accounting practices. Faulty hiring and 
     staffing practices, including improper and extensive hirings 
     of consultants and experts. Hiring of personnel at salaries 
     markedly above previous private-sector earnings.

  Mr. President, I believe that is a very serious reason not to confirm 
Mr. Brown to this position.
  Finally, let me point out another very significant, maybe the most 
important, reason why he should not be confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to 
CSCE. That is the CSCE job itself. It has become pretty clear that the 
post-cold-war world has become far more complex and, in many cases, 
uglier and bloodier than almost anyone would have imagined. Former 
Yugoslavia comes immediately to mind, as well as the former Soviet 
Union. And who knows what will be next.
  CSCE is one of the most important policy instruments in dealing with 
these challenges, requiring an individual with the highest skills in a 
variety of military and diplomatic areas. That is why the European 
nations represented in CSCE invariably send their most highly 
experienced and capable diplomatic and national security professionals 
to fill what they see as a key diplomatic post, a practice followed by 
the United States in the past.
  Sam Brown, on the other hand, has virtually no experience in many 
areas critical to the CSCE post--international conflict resolution, 
NATO, military forces of the Western European Union, ethnic conflicts 
in areas such as the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, human 
rights issues, and arms control. Mr. President, in my opinion, this is 
just not acceptable. Mr. Brown is plainly inexperienced and 
unqualified. In these dangerous times, we do not need on-the-job 
training at CSCE.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to reiterate my larger point, 
and that is to question President Clinton for this nomination. I am 
reminded of President Clinton's letter to the draft board in which he 
mentioned that he loathed the military. By the statements Mr. Brown 
made, he obviously loathed the military as well. To put a person of 
that philosophy, with that reputation, with that reputation being known 
throughout the international community in this prestigious position, in 
my opinion, sends the wrong signal.
  NATO is at a crisis point. NATO may be in the process of dissolving. 
A lot of people cannot cut NATO fast enough in terms of dollars, in 
terms of personnel, in terms of bases. I happen to be one who thinks 
there are significant military threats, and there have been significant 
accomplishments that NATO has achieved for the last 40-some years. And 
I would hate to see that happen. I certainly hate to see it happen with 
the lack of leadership by the United States. I am afraid that Sam Brown 
would be the wrong kind of leader at the wrong time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator yield me 2 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Two minutes. And also 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island, who asked unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be 
granted 2 minutes and the Senator from Arizona be granted 2 minutes 
following that. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am not 
sure I heard. Is the time to be charged to their side?
  Mr. PELL. Unfortunately, to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BROWN. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise that the Senator from 
Rhode Island has 8 minutes remaining and the Senator from Colorado has 
27 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes, following which the Chair 
will recognize the Senator from Arizona for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I regret that I have been involved in the 
health care markup and I have not been able to participate. I spoke 
yesterday.
  But let me say that I just heard the last couple of speeches from the 
other side. I cannot remember when I heard so much misinformation in 
one small segment on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The things that 
Senator Nickles refers to are the things that took place with VISTA and 
ACTION prior to Sam Brown 's being there. I chaired the subcommittee. 
We had 6 days of hearings, 34 hours of hearings, with people under 
oath.
  I point out one thing that was mentioned here about lobbying. Was 
there lobbying under VISTA? They found five instances of lobbying of 
4,300 grants, and VISTA itself stopped it. We brought in and put under 
oath every witness. We found one instance. We brought in all these 
people they wanted to bring in. We found one instance where some 
volunteers in Missouri had taken some senior citizens down to lobby in 
Jefferson City, MO. That was it; period. You would think that they were 
massively involved in lobbying as you listen to this.
  Sam Brown did a solid job at ACTION. That was the outcome. The House 
Appropriations Committee report just referred to added 20 percent to 
its budget after the hearings. Clearly, we are making a mountain out of 
a mole hill here. We ought to approve Sam Brown for the rank of 
Ambassador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Illinois has 
expired.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate. I am 
discouraged. I am discouraged because the debate has gotten down to, in 
my view, a political effort to embarrass Mr. Brown, Sam Brown, and to 
embarrass this administration. I happen to know a little bit about the 
CSCE, the Commission on Security Cooperation. I am chairman of the 
Helsinki commission, the CSCE congressional commission. I have been on 
that commission for more than 10 years, and have been the co-chairman 
and the chairman before.
  I know what this entails, this particular ambassadorial position to 
the CSCE. We are really confusing things here, and there are red 
herrings, or whatever you want to throw up here, trying to disrupt the 
process and to go back to this man, Sam Brown's record of 14 years, of 
20 years ago, and try to make him some kind of villain.
  With respect to the reference to his opposition to the Vietnam war, 
it just so happens that my former Congressman, Morris K. Udall, was one 
of the first leaders in the House of Representatives to come out in 
opposition, and very strong opposition, to the President of the United 
States of the same party, Lyndon Johnson, in that war. And he was 
lambasted in Arizona. He was called all kinds of names. It just so 
happens in retrospect that he was right because he said we made a 
mistake, and that there were things happening in that war that should 
not be happening.
  Now, as he lays in the veterans' hospital out here, I cannot help but 
think of Morris Udall, and if he were the nominee here, would people be 
standing up and going back about things that he said in the 
Congressional Record and in his newsletters? I read them as a young, 
budding politician and disagreed with them. But now I realize, and I 
realized shortly thereafter, just what a strong man he was.
  We should confirm this individual. He is someone who can serve well. 
This is a political mistake and an unfair one. The American public 
deserves better than gridlock. That is what this is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, who is departing 
the Chamber now who just finished speaking, and Sam Brown and I all 
have a common experience. All of us were privileged to serve as 
treasurers of our State for a period of time. And it was in the 
capacity as treasurer of the State of Colorado that I knew Sam Brown. 
And I knew him as a capable and a committed public official who 
performed his duties with integrity. His performance in that demanding 
position gives me confidence in his ability to hold ambassadorial rank 
with the CSCE.
  For more than 6 months, the nomination of Sam W. Brown as ambassador 
to head the U.S. delegation at the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe has been detoured, delayed, and deliberately 
redirected. I rise today to support his confirmation and to urge the 
Senate to conclude a nomination that never should have met such 
unreasonable resistance.
  Mr. Brown's ability, Mr. President, is granted even by his 
detractors. The Senate has seen his proven record of public service and 
longstanding concern for international affairs. We have noted, as 
President Clinton did, the caliber of his service as director of ACTION 
under President Carter. Mr. Brown's subsequent success as a businessman 
further testifies to his pragmatism, versatility, and organizational 
ability. One publication summarized his career best by describing Mr. 
Brown as ``a businesslike public servant and public-spirited 
businessman.''
  This is the Sam Brown whom we should evaluate for ambassadorial 
standing. Whoever he may have been as an exceedingly young man our 
Nation was a deeply embroiled place is not the point.
  The point is that Mr. Brown's credentials and abilities are equal to 
those of his predecessors, three of whom have endorsed his confirmation 
along with the Members of Congress most familiar with CSCE. He has been 
thoroughly briefed and prepared for his upcoming duties.
  There is no question, Mr. President, that he will assume these 
duties. The only question is whether he assumes them with the rank of 
Ambassador. I say that Sam Brown is qualified for the job, and he 
deserves the standing that goes with it. Let us also consider, Mr. 
President, who would really be damaged by denying him the standing he 
deserves.
  Mr. Brown certainly would have his self-esteem and perhaps his 
reputation insulted. But something is more important than that. Denying 
Sam Brown Ambassador standing would be a declaration that our country 
does not value this position sufficiently to grant its occupant the 
same standing that his colleagues enjoy. By denying Sam Brown 
ambassadorial rank, the greater insult would be to our European allies, 
and the greater damage would be to the important work in human rights 
and conflict resolution that CSCE undertakes.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, with regard to whether or not the nominee 
has the same qualifications as previous Ambassadors, let me take issue 
with my good friend from Tennessee.
  It is very clear that our previous nominees have had extensive 
experience with regard to national security, and Sam Brown has none. 
Those are the facts. It is very clear that many of them have had 
extensive and significant language abilities beyond just the English 
language, which is important in that post, and Sam Brown does not. 
Those are the facts. It is very clear they have extensive and 
distinguished careers in diplomatic experience, and Sam Brown, while he 
has supervised the Peace Corps Agency, does not have that experience. 
There are dramatic differences.
  I believe a review of the facts will indicate that far from having 
the qualifications other Ambassadors have had, the truth is that it is 
just the opposite, that he stands in stark contrast to their very 
distinguished backgrounds.
  I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and my colleague for reserving 15 
minutes for me.
  In considering the nomination of Mr. Samuel W. Brown to be the 
Ambassador to CSCE, I have reflected on the latitude which ought to be 
accorded the President in making this decision for the ambassadorship, 
reflecting as well on the constitutional responsibility of the Senate 
for advice and consent as a check. The nomination of Mr. Brown came up 
yesterday, at the same time as the nomination of Mr. Derek Shearer to 
be Ambassador to Finland.
  On the cloture vote yesterday as to Mr. Shearer, I had voted against 
cloture, thinking it was the Brown nomination, when it was the Shearer 
nomination. That was corrected yesterday by unanimous consent.
  I had spoken very briefly on the floor yesterday morning and said 
that I intended to support Mr. Shearer's nomination and to oppose Mr. 
Brown's nomination. My intentions were clear even before that error 
when the vote occurred. I referred to the Shearer nomination because, 
while there were significant negatives on Mr. Shearer, it seemed to me 
that in taking the issue in its totality, the President ought to be 
accorded discretion, and that Mr. Shearer's qualifications outweighed 
the objections that were raised. The objections were considerable.
  When it comes to the nomination of Mr. Brown, it seems to me that the 
presumption that you give to the President just does not hold sway or 
dominate. That is because the responsibilities of the Ambassador to the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe are just too 
important, and there are too many negatives on Mr. Brown for this 
assignment.
  I have studied the criticism of Mr. Brown with respect to his 
attitude on Vietnam, and while that troubles me, I would not weigh that 
heavily at this time, which is substantially after that period. I have 
also seen the criticisms leveled at Mr. Brown for his conduct on the 
ACTION agency. Those are a good bit more troubling but, again, they are 
not decisive.
  When I have reviewed the answers which Mr. Brown has given to the 
questions about his background on Europe and his background on the 
specific items which the Ambassador and the chief negotiator on the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe must possess, I 
believe we have passed the point of no return. I also say that it is 
difficult on a cloture vote, where we are realistically asking for 60 
votes on confirmation, in order to get the nomination to the floor.
  I say candidly that I am troubled by stopping the nomination at the 
point of cloture. It may be that Mr. Brown would not get 51 votes on 
the nomination itself. The vote yesterday was 54 for cloture. I talked 
to my colleague, Senator Brown, who tells me it is very close. He might 
not get the votes even on a 51-vote basis, because some might object to 
stopping it on cloture. But who would vote against Mr. Brown? I do not 
know whether that is true or not.
  I am troubled by a situation where the only pressure point 
Republicans have in the U.S. Government is on cloture. Once cloture is 
obtained, there are more than enough votes on the other side of the 
aisle to cover the day. While the House is not involved in this matter, 
the House is overwhelmingly Democratic; there is a Democrat in the 
White House. The only place Republicans can assert any effective, 
decisive action is by stopping somebody from coming up. We have 44 
votes, and we have more than enough, if there unity among the 
Republicans, to do that. I think Mr. Brown's nomination and the 
responsibilities at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe are sufficiently important to preclude his nomination.
  Why do I feel that way? I will not go into the entire record, but it 
is in the report which has been submitted by the Committee on Foreign 
Relations on the nomination of Sam W. Brown, Jr. I will only take a few 
of the questions and answers.

       Question: What practical experience do you have in working 
     in the former Soviet Union?
       What educational background do you have on the former 
     Soviet Union?

  The answer to both of those questions is:

       I have no direct experience.

  I infer that it covers educational background, as well.
  The answer goes on to talk about the CSCE delegation being strong. 
Then there are questions as to his background with the Armenians and 
Azerbaijanis. I am not surprised that there is no experience there, but 
there is none. Then the question is:

       What practical experience have you had working in the 
     former Yugoslavia, and what educational background do you 
     have concerning the former Yugoslavia, a very important area 
     which CSCE deals with?

  The answer is ``no direct experience in the former Yugoslavia,'' but 
states that ``over the last 25 years I have been to many other parts of 
the world where deep-seated disputes had been present. I believe my 
broad experience with conflict resolution will serve me well in this 
area.''
  I do not know what his experience is in conflict resolution. I wonder 
how that bears on this.
  Then the comment that he makes in response to question 9, ``The war 
in Bosnia has brought calls for a more decisive role for the CSCE in 
dealing with conflicts in Europe. Some suggest that CSCE should call 
upon NATO to conduct peacekeeping operations. Should there be a firm 
cease-fire reached in Bosnia and then a continuation of the question 
sending American troops as part of the NATO peacekeeping force in 
Bosnia is certainly to expose them to specific risks. What 
recommendations would you make to the President and the CSCE concerning 
the involvement of American troops?''
  ``Answer: This particular issue is being dealt with by the U.N. and 
NATO, and the CSCE has no direct role in the question of a peacekeeping 
operation in Bosnia.''
  That answer gives me no comfort. That answer, in my judgment, is 
totally insufficient.
  The question is raised about sending American troops as part of a 
NATO peacekeeping force into Bosnia, and it is a disclaimer. CSCE has 
nothing to do with it. I would expect someone who is seeking 
confirmation as Ambassador to CSCE in these troubled waters to be a 
good more informative on this kind of a subject.
  As part of my consideration, Mr. President, for this nomination is 
the general status of the Department of State and this administration 
on foreign policy. I am very concerned about the adequacy of this 
administration on foreign policy.
  We have a situation where the President talks about the use of force 
in Haiti, which I think is totally unacceptable. The House of 
Representatives in a nonbinding resolution has voted against the 
involvement of U.S. force in Haiti. When that issue has been on the 
floor I have said earlier that I do not think that is a matter for the 
President alone. There is not an emergency situation. There is no 
reason for the President to act without coming to Congress. It is a 
complex question as to what is or is not a war.
  I believe we went to war in Korea without a congressional declaration 
in violation of the Constitution and, in my legal judgment, we did the 
same thing in Vietnam, although there was the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution. Finally, the Congress faced up to the use of force in Iraq, 
and the Congress voted for the use of force in a resolution.
  I am concerned about an administration which talks about the use of 
force in Haiti at all, certainly without coming to the Congress.
  We have the problems in Bosnia which are overwhelming, and we have 
had the President make repeated threats as to Bosnia that have made the 
United States of America look very inept.
  I would hope that whoever is our Ambassador to the CSCE would have 
very substantial experience in that field and would have some views 
about that matter.
  While Somalia is yesterday's news, we had very material risks there 
with a resolution being offered by the Senator on the other side of the 
aisle for a precipitous retreat from Somalia. It was the Senators on 
this side of the aisle which carried the day for a resolution which 
gave several months for an orderly withdrawal.
  So in evaluating Mr. Brown for Ambassador to CSCE, I am mindful as to 
where this administration stands on foreign policy overall. It is my 
view that there ought to be someone who is very strong in foreign 
policy and very knowledgeable.
  When my colleague, Senator Brown, came to me last week and raised his 
concerns, and Senator Hank Brown's leadership has been paramount, I 
suggested to him that we write to the President and raise concerns 
which we had. That letter was signed by many Senators seeking from the 
administration some more forceful showing of qualifications by Mr. 
Brown.
  On the totality of the record, Mr. President, it seems to me that it 
is a role where the Senate ought to step in on its advice an consent 
function, even considering the general latitude to be allowed to the 
President. It ought to step in at the level of the cloture vote to deny 
this nomination.
  I inquire, Mr. President, how much of the 15 minutes I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator 
Brown for his extraordinary effort in bringing this matter to our 
attention. I think it was important as an educational process.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak with reference to the nomination of 
Sam Brown to be Ambassador to the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe.
  Mr. President, this is the type of nomination that gives me pause, 
and causes me to reflect anew about when it is proper to oppose a 
President's choice for such a post.
  We face that issue frequently in this Chamber. We have all seen 
Presidents nominate individuals who embrace philosophies that we do not 
agree with, and we allow many of those to be confirmed. I believe that 
most of us on both sides of the aisle do a pretty good job of upholding 
the general principle that the President, once elected, is entitled to 
have his chosen people in positions of importance.
  I try to abide by that principle. We're going to see that principle 
upheld during the consideration of Judge Breyer's nomination to the 
Supreme Court. We saw it upheld with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and with 
Anthony Kennedy. We saw it upheld with Cabinet appointments such as 
Robert Reich and Ron Brown. I didn't agree with these nominees on every 
issue, as several of my colleagues did not, but we sent them on through 
the process in order to help the President get the assistance that he 
desired.
  All of us, however, occasionally confront a nomination which tests 
that principle. There may be outstanding questions about a nominee's 
personal character or past behavior, questions of suitability for the 
post, questions as to whether philosophical differences are too great, 
too fundamental, to be tolerated. I think of the reaction of some to 
Judge Robert Bork with that last one. I would defy anyone in this 
Chamber to demonstrate that there was any thoughtful or honest question 
challenging his personal ethics, his character, or his professional 
qualifications. He went down to defeat purely because of his divergence 
from philosophies held on the other side.
  It is against this background that I wish to discuss this nomination. 
This is a nomination for an individual to be Ambassador to the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or CSCE. I would 
remind my colleagues that this differs fundamentally from being 
appointed Ambassador to a smaller country or to even a major power like 
China or the United Kingdom. The CSCE is a forum that deals with 
critical arms control negotiations, most specifically balancing the 
strategic concerns of European nations and those republics which 
formerly made up the Soviet Union, especially pertaining to the Treaty 
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
  Certainly I would expect that it would be most appropriate to appoint 
a noncontroversial individual who is a considered expert in questions 
of military and strategic balance. The person ought also to have the 
confidence of the American military as well as our European allies.
  The person need not have a military background. We have sent 
individuals to CSCE in the past who have not. But they must inspire 
confidence from all quarters.
  The personal background of Sam Brown is well known and I see little 
need to review it in detail here. The nominee himself acknowledges his 
background as an activist and organizer against the Vietnam war. During 
that time he generated a more than ample paper trail.
  The essential point about this period of his life is not that Sam 
Brown said or wrote things that embarrass him now--and the essential 
point is not that he opposed the Vietnam war. It does bear comment, 
however, that the Washington Monthly would publish Mr. Brown's ``The 
Politics of Peace,'' and that Mr. Brown's stature as a leading figure 
in the antiwar movement was sufficient to induce Random House 
to publish his ``Why are we Still in Vietnam?'' For he was a major 
figure in the antiwar movement, and he was treated as such by 
publishers.

  This is not a young Bill Clinton--confused, searching, and uncertain 
about how to react to Vietnam. Many individuals who are now prominent 
were once in that most unpleasant position. This is not a case of an 
individual's private past being resurrected in an embarrassing way. 
Rather, Sam Brown became a public figure at that time precisely because 
of his antiwar activities.
  I realize that we are only debating whether to confer upon Mr. Brown 
the title of Ambassador, and that he will be involved in CSCE 
regardless. Yet I find it entirely appropriate to ask whether it is 
good judgement to place part of the apparatus of our national security 
negotiations in the hands of a man who once wrote that ``. . . any 
semblance of a military victory in Vietnam would be disastrous. . . it 
would convince many Americans that the war was right.'' I do not want 
to characterize such a quotation, but for me that comes uncomfortably 
close to a willingness to be a party to our military defeat, and 
although we might be tempted to excuse such an attitude as a youthful 
indiscretion, we could not be sure that others will do so.
  When Sam Brown entered the Carter administration as to head the 
ACTION agency, he was interviewed by Penthouse magazine. Of course, the 
nominee can be excused for now wishing that he had not said some of the 
things he did during this interview and during others, too. What I 
would point out to my colleagues, however, is that this article 
appeared precisely because Mr. Brown's accession to a high government 
post was newsworthy due to the fact that, as they put it, he was the 
``first person out of the Vietnam antiwar movement to be appointed to a 
high government position.'' Again, I would emphasize the view of Mr. 
Brown as a prominent figure of controversy.
  I will not quote from the Penthouse interview at length, but there is 
one quotation that struck me most strangely: in that interview, Mr. 
Brown gives his opinion that Max Cleland, a fellow appointee who lost 
three limbs in the service of his country, was not necessarily a war 
criminal. This is said in the context of remarks about how well he got 
along with Max Cleland. He said he meant it in a friendly, not in an 
accusatory way, but one wonders about how closed and harsh a mind must 
be to give such faint praise to such a patriotic sacrifice of such a 
man. I know Max Cleland. He is one splendid man. I am offended by that 
statement.
  I would next note that Mr. Brown's performance as head of ACTION was 
far from exemplary. He has had to spend a considerable amount of time 
defending against charges of mismanagement. In 1978 a House 
Appropriations Committee report identified instances of improper 
procurement practices, financial mismanagement, grants awarded without 
competition, improper use of experts and consultants, among other 
inappropriate management practices.
  Mr. Brown in 1977 also received some embarrassing publicity for his 
attendance of a reception in New York welcoming Vietnam to the United 
Nations. He now claims that as the gathering degenerated into America-
bashing, he became uncomfortable and left. However, he was quoted in 
the September 26, 1977, New York Times as having a far more 
enthusiastic reaction to the proceedings.
  Again, I repeat that Mr. Brown's previous antiwar activism is not by 
itself a disqualifying factor. But this appears to me to be a most 
peculiar and insensitive choice for such a critical post. A number of 
veteran's groups have come out to express their concerns about Mr. 
Brown, and former under Secretary of Defense Fred Ikle has written to 
urge the defeat of this nomination. I have reviewed Mr. Brown's 
background and this seems to me to be an especially inappropriate 
placement for him. If the United States is going to retain a position 
of leadership and guidance in such delicate international security 
arrangements, we need to have appointees who are appropriate to the 
task. I would suggest that the nominee's administrative history, as 
well as his history in relation to security matters, both in terms of 
controversial and even bizarre behavior and lack of appropriate 
expertise, surely make him the wrong choice for this position. Let us 
reserve such an appointment for an individual who commands more 
widespread confidence and respect.
  This is different than other things because you want to hear clearly 
what Senator Brown is saying. He is not on some vendetta. He is not 
interested in some process where this person is destroyed. He is saying 
simply that this man should not be the Ambassador on the Conference on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  Find him another job, and I will stand here, too, and assist in that 
process of placing him, but not in this sensitive position, not in the 
mission he has, not with the things he said in the past.
  Call it ideology, call it anything you want, but it is embarrassing 
when put into its full context. Withdraw this nomination, present Mr. 
Brown in some other forum with some other task, and this Senator, and I 
am sure others, depending on what that task is, will support him in 
that cause.
  I received many good recommendations from Democratic friends of mine 
who are very high on Mr. Brown. I understand that. But I think that is 
not the position for him.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, will the Chair advise me how much time each 
side has remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Rhode Island has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would accede to the chairman's wishes 
with regard to how he wants to allocate that. We can go ahead and spend 
our time now.
  Mr. PELL. The Senator may go ahead. I have 1 minute which I will use 
when we get down closer.
  Mr. BROWN. So the chairman will have the close on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as Members reach a final conclusion on how 
they will vote on in this measure, I hope they will consider the 
following four points. They are ones that relate to the importance of 
this decision and the importance of the future of the CSCE. Some have 
criticized our foreign policy for its drift. But the truth is foreign 
policy is a difficult and a challenging area. It is one that any 
administration, no matter how competent and how good, will have 
difficult times with because the questions are difficult and because 
the problems are difficult.
  But we as a Senate of the United States have a responsibility in this 
area. The Constitution defines it. It is to advise and consent. And 
that is a much heavier responsibility than simply one that says vote 
for people your party nominates. It demands the best from us because 
our Nation's foreign policy is not going to end its drift unless all of 
us do our part.
  Our part is clear. It is to advise and consent. We must do more than 
simply vote in a way that avoids hurting someone's feelings. We must do 
something more than vote to rubberstamp our President, right or wrong.
  We have a responsibility also to judge whether or not Sam Brown is 
the right person for this job. Honest men and women will differ on that 
question. But I would ask the Members who would make a decision on that 
to consider this: First, ask yourself do you believe Sam Brown is 
qualified for the job?
  Mr. President, here is a Washington Post editorial that endorses Sam 
Brown but listen to what they have to say about his qualifications for 
the position of CSCE:

       They say that he lacks experience in military and national 
     security issues, which is true, and the bureaucratic pedigree 
     of some other countries' CSCE representatives, which is also 
     true.

  In other words, the leading editorial on his behalf acknowledges he 
does not have the qualifications in national security experience nor 
experience in diplomacy that will match his counterparts.
  I believe most Members will conclude that he is simply not qualified 
for the job.
  Second, I hope Members will ask themselves, do you think Sam Brown is 
the right one to manage the CSCE, both its operations and its staff?
  Members will disagree, but there is objective evidence that is 
available.
  First of all, there is the House Democratic Appropriations 
Subcommittee staff report. It chronicles dozens and dozens and dozens 
of violations of the statutes and regulations of this country--some 
inadvertent, some direct, some conscious.
  Now there has been criticism of this House Democratic staff report. 
Some said it was not voted on. Well, of course it was not voted on. It 
is a staff report. It was never intended to be voted on.
  Another criticism was leveled. It has been said that all the 
mismanagement that occurred happened prior to Sam Brown's leadership of 
ACTION.
  Mr. President, that is simply not true. I went through in detail more 
than a dozen specific allegations and violations, as documented in 
detail in the report, that all occurred during Sam Brown's tenure. I 
believe, as Members review the Record, they will find there is 
extraordinary documentation of Sam Brown's mismanagement.
  For those who have questions about management style, look at the way 
the head of the Peace Corps was fired--shouting matches, pounding on 
her door at midnight in a foreign hotel. I have serious difficulty in 
believing that Members will think this is a management style that ought 
to be extended to CSCE.
  Second, the quote about being second to none in the hatred of 
intelligence agencies, perhaps it was a product of youthful enthusiasm. 
But, Mr. President, a majority of the staff of the CSCE have military 
portfolios or are military or military intelligence officers. It is the 
bulk of the staff that he will supervise. Is Sam Brown the right one to 
supervise and manage that staff? I cannot help but believe that Members 
will conclude that he is simply not right for the job.
  Third, do Members think Sam Brown is the right one to supervise the 
monitoring of the Open Skies Treaty and the Conventional Forces in 
Europe Treaty. These treaties are assigned to CSCE for monitoring and 
follow up. More importantly, CSCE will be the forum in which continuing 
negotiations on the Conventional Forces Treaty will occur.
  Mr. President, one thing is clear: Sam Brown has no national security 
experience. We are not simply saying he did not serve in the military. 
We are saying he has no national security experience--something that 
every Ambassador to CSCE has had--experience in negotiating and dealing 
with national security questions, issues, handling the material, 
negotiating on the issues, understanding the forces that are involved. 
He simply is without experience in that area.
  I believe most Members, as they review this question, will come to 
the conclusion that monitoring and directing negotiations relating to 
the Open Skies Treaty and the Conventional Forces Treaty are not 
activities that should be entrusted to someone with no experience. It 
would be negligent of us to abrogate our responsibility to the Nation 
by not making our concern clear.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe Members will reflect on whether or 
not they think Sam Brown is the right one to negotiate the Treaty on 
Conventional Forces in the future. We expect, and I think all Members 
hope, that there will be a new agreement with the Russians that will 
expand the reduction of conventional forces in Europe, that will do 
even more to reduce the outlays that are wasted on both sides, that 
will do more to ensure peace and reduce the weapons of war.
  Ask yourselves: Will it be helpful to have a treaty negotiated by Sam 
Brown that proposes significant reductions in European forces, or will 
that fact make it more difficult to ratify?
  This Senator believes that if you send someone who has no background 
in national security to lead the negotiations on the new Conventional 
Forces Treaty that, rather than help pass it, it will make it far more 
difficult to pass.
  I am one who has believed in mutual arms reduction. I voted for it. I 
voted for it at times when my President and much of my party disagreed. 
I voted for the nuclear freeze. I voted for weapons reductions. I have 
spoken out against the leadership of my party at times urging 
agreements that were mutual and verifiable.
  As one who believes in mutual reduction of weaponry, I believe having 
someone with no experience negotiate a weapons reduction treaty would 
be a tragic mistake. Frankly, Mr. President, I believe it will make 
such a treaty much more difficult to ratify.
  Finally, Mr. President, all of us will cast our vote based on the 
sense we have about the candidate and the job, whether we like him or 
not, whether he is qualified or not, whether he stands for what we 
believe in or not.
  While I have spoken out against the confirmation of Sam Brown, let me 
acknowledge this is a bright person, this is an articulate person, this 
is an able person in many ways. But, Mr. President, I believe this job 
demands more. I also believe, in our responsibility and our role to 
advise and consent, that it would be a tragic mistake to confirm Sam 
Brown.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we have heard the arguments pro and con. My 
own view, and I think the view of many of us, is that Mr. Brown fully 
matches the qualifications of his predecessors. He has demonstrated a 
capacity for leadership and for bringing people together. He has a 
quality of enthusiasm and energy. He will bring to the CSCE a new look 
and strength and vigor.
  I urge my colleagues to vote at least for cloture so that we can get 
to the vote of the candidate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Who yields time?
  Mr. PELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is out of time.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. BROWN. Does the distinguished chairman wish more time? I would be 
glad to share the 1 minute we have left.
  Mr. PELL. No. We would both just say the same thing. Let us vote.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Sam Brown's nomination to head of the U.S. 
Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe is 
regarded by veterans groups and countless others as a slap in the face. 
I commend the able Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] for his thoughtful 
and well-researched opposition to this nomination. I agree with his 
remarks and I join in his opposition to Sam Brown.
  The differences between my philosophy and that of Sam Brown are as 
wide as the Grand Canyon. I am offended anew when I read or hear about 
his past conduct and statements. I resent his callous disregard for his 
country and I am even more astonished by his utter lack of 
qualifications for an increasingly important post for the United States 
in Europe--that of the Vienna post at the CSCE. Mr. Brown's abysmal 
record during his previous Government service should be of enormous 
concern to all Members regardless of political affiliation.
  The position of U.S. head of delegation to the CSCE in Vienna changed 
significantly in 1992 and over the last few years, the CSCE position 
has grown in importance. Military issues addressed in CSCE have been 
expanded to include confidence and security building measures. Today, 
CSBM activities include the most important issues of nonproliferation, 
defense planning and transparency among CSCE member states, monitoring 
missions and support for U.N. peacekeeping activities. Additionally, 
negotiations regarding the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty 
and the Open Skies Treaty are centered in Vienna.
  To give you an idea of the importance attached to the military 
component of the CSCE position, the Russians have asked the United 
States to revise the flank limits to the CFE Treaty. If approved, this 
would give Russia the green light to keep Russian forces stationed in 
the sovereign nations that it considers to be in its sphere of 
influence. So far, this administration has held firm and opposed any 
revisions of the flank limits for CFE. This doesn't mean the Russians 
have given up trying to change United States policy. It will be the job 
of the head of delegation to CSCE to stand firm. It will require an 
individual who will be seen as credible and knowledgeable in the eyes 
of the Russians. As Larry DiRita recently wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal ``given the occasionally confusing and tense nature of 
exchanges with the Russians on military issues, it is important to have 
someone with diplomatic or arms control experience in the CSCE job.'' 
Mr. Brown is not that person. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  Sam Brown just isn't quite up to Mr. DiRita's standards. It's 
important to note that U.S. Ambassadors to the CSCE prior to 
negotiations on the CFE Treaty, were not responsible for such extensive 
military matters. The military-diplomatic experience has never been 
more vital than it is today. All of the previous Ambassadors had some 
form of military or diplomatic related experience prior to being given 
the CSCE post.
  The head of delegation must be able to manage and guide the extensive 
resources of the United States under his direction. This job involves 
far more than reception small talk. It requires a knowledge of military 
and policy matters of much intricacy.
  Mr. President, it is clear that Sam Brown has no military experience. 
From looking at his record, I see that Mr. Brown's only experience with 
the military involved organizing large protests against United States 
involvement in Vietnam as head of the Vietnam Moratorium Committee.
  What a man says and/or believes reveals a very great deal. Let me 
share some of Sam Brown's extraordinarily callous statements from his 
halcyon days as ``peace protester extrordinaire.'' In an article 
appearing in the August 1970 edition of the Washington Monthly Mr. 
Brown wrote, ``any semblance of a military victory in Vietnam would be 
disastrous for the United States.'' It seems that Mr. Brown wanted the 
United States to lose--to walk away in abject defeat in Vietnam. I 
imagine that is a deeply troubling statement to many Americans, 
especially those who lost loved ones in Southeast Asia.
  In 1977, when the Vietnamese were admitted into the United Nations, 
Mr. Brown attended a reception in their honor. Eric Severaid of CBS 
when reporting on the event characterized this reception as a gathering 
of those who were ``not celebrating peace. They were celebrating the 
triumph of Communist totalitarianism, which is what they had always 
been working for in the guise of a peace movement.'' The New York Times 
quoted Mr. Brown at the reception as saying, ``I am deeply moved, its 
difficult to describe my feelings--what can you say when the kinds of 
things that 15 years of your life were wrapped up in are suddenly 
before you? * * * I believe we ought to aid the Vietnamese in their 
reconstruction.'' Mr. Brown was also responsible for proposing that 
President Carter grant unconditional amnesty to Vietnam war draft 
resisters.
  While Sam Brown had time to deride the United States Government he 
found no fault with the Communist Government of Vietnam. Sam Brown did 
not say a word about Communist Vietnam's lack of respect for human 
rights. He was not offended by the cold blooded murder of thousands of 
North Vietnamese farmers, the forced exile of thousands of innocent 
women and children or the religious persecution and murder of thousands 
of Vietnamese people, verging on religious genocide. Sam Brown did not 
utter a word on behalf of the true victims. For this reason, I am most 
troubled that it will be his responsibility at CSCE to decry the same 
abuses he so readily ignored two decades ago. Will he turn the same 
blind eye to the issues of human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, 
forced exile and the like?
  Brown has written ``on the night of the Cambodian invasion part of me 
wanted to blow up buildings, and I decided that those who had waged 
this war really should be treated as war criminals.'' Is this the 
individual the U.S. Senate wants to head a delegation of 40 
professionals representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ACDA, the Defense 
Department, the intelligence community, the Agency for International 
Development, and the State Department? Is this the type of person the 
U.S. Senate wants directing U.S. policy on nonproliferation issues, 
defense planning, peacekeeping missions, and negotiating with the 
Russians on enforcement activities? I think not.
  There are plenty of qualified Americans who could serve their country 
with distinction in Vienna. In a December 1993 Washington Post article, 
David Broder supported the findings of a report by the late Lewis 
Puller, Jr. and Jack Wheeler which urged the President to appoint more 
Vietnam veterans to the administration. Mr. Broder was right when he 
quoted Mr. Wheeler that, ``the Clinton administration is largely a 
networked clique of people who were antimilitary and antiwar during the 
1960's and carry their biases with them still.''
  Mr. Brown publicly exhibited his complete disdain for the U.S. 
intelligence community by stating in an interview in 1977, ``I take 
second place to no one in my hatred of the intelligence agencies.'' I 
ask again, do we want this man representing the United States in 
Vienna? If confirmed he would have and need access to the intelligence 
products of the U.S. Government to carry out his duties. I hope that 
his previous bias against the intelligence community would not diminish 
his ability to perform his duties or cause him to disregard the 
intelligence community as a credible source of information.
  Mr. President, it is the role of the Senate to examine the nominees 
before us. I have always believed that the President should, generally 
speaking, be entitled to the people he wants surrounding him, but in 
this case Sam Brown's actions and statements clearly demonstrate that 
he is not qualified for the position for which he has been nominated to 
head the U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation 
in Europe.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 17, 1994]

                         Wrong Man for the Job

                           (By Larry Di Rita)

       When it was completed in the fall of 1990, the Treaty on 
     Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was no less proof of the 
     West's victory over the Soviet Union than the fall of the 
     Berlin Wall. The treaty enshrined in international law the 
     Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. As noted by then-Defense 
     Secretary Richard Cheney in July 1991: ``With implementation 
     of the CFE treaty, for the first time since the end of World 
     War II'' the ``Soviets would be denied the ability to mount 
     [an offensive] threat'' in Europe.
       Thus we ought to be concerned that the Russian successor to 
     the Soviet government has requested that certain treaty 
     limits be relaxed. In particular, the treaty restricts Russia 
     from massing troops in the so-called flank regions of Europe, 
     thereby preventing it from injecting forces into border 
     conflicts in places like the Caucasus and elsewhere. The 
     obvious Western response to Moscow's request for relaxation 
     should be that that's precisely the point of the treaty, 
     especially as the Russian defense minister and others have 
     cited their intention to remain engaged in what they 
     euphemistically refer to as ``the near abroad.''
       Negotiations over the treaty are taking place in Vienna, at 
     the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Founded 
     in the mid-1970s, the CSCE accomplished little until the late 
     1980s when, under the leadership of a series of exceptional 
     U.S. ambassadors, serious negotiations began that eventually 
     led to the CFE treaty. The CSCE is now the treaty's steward, 
     and the Russians have appealed to that body's Joint 
     Consultative Group for changes to the flank limits.
       Until recently, the U.S. delegation was in the able hands 
     of Ambassador John Kornblum. Previous assignments as U.S. 
     minister and chief of the political section in the U.S. 
     mission in Berlin, director of the State Department's Office 
     of Central European Affairs and deputy chief of the U.S. 
     mission to NATO gave him a European security pedigree that 
     made it unlikely he would yield anything meaningful to the 
     Russians.
       I myself have been no fan of career diplomats per se, but a 
     brief period of service for Ambassador Kornblum in Helsinki 
     made it clear to me that his talents were unique. He was 
     acutely aware, for example, that Europe would soon drift 
     toward chaos without visionary leadership from the U.S.--this 
     at a time when the Yugoslav conflict seemed localized. 
     Unfortunately, his proposed replacement lacks the knowledge 
     and exposure for such vision.
       The Senate will soon take up the nomination of Samuel W. 
     Brown Jr. to replace Mr. Kornblum as the U.S. ambassador to 
     the CSCE. A former Colorado state treasurer and Jimmy 
     Carter's director of Action/Peace Corps, Mr. Brown could be 
     the man on whom the stability of this pillar of post-Cold War 
     security will rest. Mr. Brown's qualifications for this 
     sensitive diplomatic post are, at best, well-concealed. But 
     there is much we do know.
       A prominent anti-Vietnam War activist in the 1960s, Mr. 
     Brown was a leading student organizer for Sen. Eugene 
     McCarthy's failed 1968 presidential campaign. In 1976, he 
     backed Jimmy Carter. During the Democratic Party's platform 
     committee deliberations that year, he organized an effort to 
     have the party endorse unconditional amnesty to Vietnam War 
     draft resisters. Even in the heady days of the first post-
     Watergate presidential elections, that proposal was voted 
     down 14 to one in committee.
       Once in office as Mr. Carter's director of Action, Mr. 
     Brown made an early mark by attending a September 1977 
     welcoming reception in honor of the Vietnam delegation to the 
     United Nations. After a rousing speech by Ngo Dien, deputy 
     foreign minister, in which he excoriated the ``American 
     imperialists'' and their ``bloody colonial war,'' Mr. Brown 
     told a New York Times reporter covering the event that he was 
     ``deeply moved.'' ``What can you say when the kinds of things 
     that 15 years of your life were wrapped up in are suddenly 
     before you?''
       One senator voting on the current Brown nomination may wish 
     to explore this theme further. The day after the Times 
     article, the Congressional Record cited the objections of 
     Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.), who called the New 
     York gathering and the attendance by U.S. government 
     officials ``repugnant to American principles and to common 
     decency generally.''
       Little he said during his nomination hearings suggests Mr. 
     Brown regrets his earlier, youthful views. As we've seen with 
     Mr. Clinton's own election, though, active opposition to the 
     Vietnam War is no barrier to high public office these days. 
     But how about mismanagement, waste and cronyism? In 1978, Mr. 
     Brown's agency was the subject of an investigation by the 
     House Appropriations Committee. Among its findings, quaintly 
     understated in the bureaucratic language of official reports: 
     ``ACTION procurement practices often conflict with regulatory 
     and statutory requirements.'' ``The . . . staff found an 
     accounting system in need of further refinement . . . and 
     travel irregularities.'' ``ACTION staff, including high-level 
     officials, have been submitting improper expense vouchers for 
     official travel.''
       In one interesting irony, investigators learned that 
     Volunteers in Service to America, a high-visibility 
     ``domestic Peace Corps,'' was using volunteers in its 
     Community Organization Research Action Project for political 
     purposes ``in the Arkansas primary election,'' the election 
     in question being the one in which then state Attorney 
     General Bill Clinton won his first term as governor.
       The House Appropriations Committee staff report offered 
     some 18 recommendations to correct what it called ``the 
     apparent weaknesses in ACTION's overall management of its 
     personnel, procurement, and budget and finance programs'' 
     during Mr. Brown's tenure. Former Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R., 
     N.H.) connected the findings to Mr. Brown's future in 
     government when he noted on the Senate floor that ``the 
     summary of findings . . . reveals such instances of 
     mismanagement, waste, apparent featherbedding, and favoritism 
     that it is ridiculous to reward him with a new position.'' 
     (At the time, Mr. Brown was being considered for a 
     confirmable position on the Consumer Cooperation Bank Board.)
       Mr. Humphrey administered the coup de grace moments later: 
     ``This record of failure to properly administer ACTION in and 
     of itself disqualifies Sam Brown from further Presidential 
     appointments.''
       But that was then; this is now. As supporters of the 
     president have been quick to remind us regarding the rapids 
     of Whitewater, what happened so many years ago isn't supposed 
     to matter today.
       But perhaps it should. In any case, there are obvious 
     grounds for concern about someone with such dubious 
     qualifications. Given the occasional confusing and tense 
     nature of exchanges with the Russians on military issues, it 
     is important to have someone with diplomatic or arms control 
     experience in the CSCE job.
       Perhaps Mr. Clinton should heed Mr. Brown's own 
     perspectives on foreign affairs and the presidency. Before 
     the invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter's contribution 
     to U.S. arms-control policy included canceling the B-1 bomber 
     and beginning the negotiations that would lead to the SALT II 
     Treaty, which locked the Soviet ability to destroy U.S. 
     strategic retaliatory power in place. Yet in a December 1977 
     interview, Mr. Brown allowed that he was ``startled that [Mr. 
     Carter] has turned out to be as much a foreign-policy 
     president as he's been--and by and large I'm very happy with 
     what he's done overseas.'' Mr. Brown, the Russian delegation 
     in Vienna awaits your arrival.
                                  ____


                   Published Statements of Sam Brown

       * * * most of us who have worked to end the war for some 
     time believe that any semblance of a military victory in 
     Vietnam would be disastrous for the United States.--The 
     Washington Monthly, August 1970.
       On the night of the Cambodian invasion, part of me wanted 
     to blow up buildings, and I decided that those who have waged 
     this war really should be treated as war criminals.--The 
     Washington Monthly, August 1970.
       I am deeply moved, it's difficult to describe my feelings--
     what can you say when the kinds of things that 15 years of 
     your life were wrapped up in are suddenly before you?... I 
     believe we ought to aid the Vietnamese in their 
     reconstruction.--The New York Times, Sept. 26, 1977.
       I take second place to no one in my hatred of the 
     intelligence agencies.--Penthouse Interview, December 1977.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado yield back the 
remainder of his time?
  Mr. BROWN. I yield to the superior wisdom of the distinguished 
chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, I understand, 
yields back his time?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________