[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     SAM BROWN'S OWN CUTTING WORDS DISQUALIFY HIM FOR OVERSEAS POST

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 8, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the May 27, 1994, edition of the Omaha World-
Herald which editorializes the legitimate reasons for opposing the 
appointment of Sam Brown, Jr. as the U.S. representative to the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE]. While Mr. 
Brown certainly may be appointed by the President as a representative 
to the CSCE without ambassadorial rank, the President should reconsider 
appointing him. There may be places where Mr. Brown can serve the 
administration, but his background and his own statements indicate that 
he should not be involved in U.S. security, foreign affairs or 
intelligence matters.

     Sam Brown's Own Cutting Words Disqualify Him for Overseas Post

       Sam Brown Jr. disqualified himself for a sensitive position 
     in the federal government with his past expressions of 
     contempt for U.S. military leaders and intelligence services.
       The Council Bluffs native, who led anti-war protests in the 
     1960s and headed the Peace Corps under President Jimmy 
     Carter, came under heavy criticism in the Senate this week. A 
     filibuster stalled his nomination to be the U.S. ambassador 
     to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
       President Clinton named Brown to be the U.S. representative 
     to the Vienna-based organization, which among other things 
     deals with arms control, military cooperation, conflict-
     avoidance and human rights questions. The appointment itself 
     is not subject to senatorial approval--only the matter of 
     ambassadorial rank.
       Brown's opponents tied up the nomination in the Senate 
     Tuesday and Wednesday, saying that the nominee's past 
     statements and activities made him a poor choice. The debate 
     raised serious questions about his fitness for the position.
       One of the most damning indictments of Brown came from Sen. 
     Bob Kerrey, who referred to a 1977 interview Brown gave 
     Penthouse magazine. The magazine quoted Brown as saying, ``I 
     take second place to no one in my hatred of intelligence 
     organizations.''
       Kerrey added that Brown had also ``said some things in the 
     early 1970s not just against the Vietnam War, but that those 
     who participated in it were criminals.''
       Does the conclusion that Brown is unsuitable to be an 
     ambassador mean that everyone who protested the war should be 
     forever banned from positions of responsibility in the 
     government?
       Of course not. Part of the healing process that has taken 
     place in recent years has been a growing acceptance of the 
     idea that it was possible to protest the war and still be a 
     patriotic American. There is and ought to remain room in the 
     nation's leadership ranks for people who made known their 
     concerns about the war in a responsible manner.
       But a point exists beyond which burned bridges are hard to 
     rebuild. Some statements are so strong, so cutting, that they 
     can hardly be taken back. Brown's statements about Vietnam 
     veterans and intelligence agencies may well fall into that 
     category.
       If as recently as the 1970s he still believed what he said 
     about people who fought in Vietnam, what has changed that 
     would now make it possible for him to objectively decide 
     matters affecting the military? And if as recently as 1977 he 
     considered intelligence agencies objects of loathing, what 
     now allows him to accept in good conscience a position in 
     which he would have to rely on information from--and perhaps 
     even supervise--intelligence operations?
       If Brown has retracted those statements, the White House 
     should have informed the Senate when it asked for approval of 
     the nomination. But if he still holds the statements to be 
     true, his judgment is open to serious question. And so is the 
     judgment of the president who apparently considers him 
     ambassadorial material.

                          ____________________