[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  PROCEEDINGS ON THE NOMINATION OF MORTON H. HALPERIN TO BE ASSISTANT 
          SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR DEMOCRACY AND PEACEKEEPING

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, last year the Committee on Armed Services 
considered the nomination of Dr. Morton H. Halperin to be Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping, a new position 
proposed to be established by former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, 
but did not complete action prior to adjournment. The nomination was 
returned to the executive branch at the end of the first session of the 
103d Congress, pursuant to Senate Rule 31. At that time, there were 
objections by a number of Republican members to inclusion of his 
nomination in the unanimous-consent request which retained a 
significant number of pending nominations in the Senate.
  Following Secretary Aspin's resignation, the administration 
reevaluated the structure of the Department of Defense and determined 
that the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and 
Peacekeeping should not be established. On January 10, 1994, Dr. 
Halperin requested that the President not resubmit his nomination, and 
the President agreed. I ask unanimous consent that an exchange of 
letters between Dr. Halperin and the President be included at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, anyone who followed this nomination knows 
that the nomination was controversial. The fact of controversy, 
however, should not stand as a judgment on the individual's 
qualifications or on the merits of the specific allegations that were 
brought to the attention of the committee. While the Senate has a 
responsibility to consider information that bears on the fitness or 
qualifications of a nominee, the fact that an allegation has been made 
should not stand as a judgment that the allegation is valid.


                         committee proceedings

  Because the nomination was withdrawn before the committee acted on 
the nomination, I believe that it is important to summarize for the 
record the committee's proceedings on the nomination.
  President Clinton announced his intent to nominate Dr. Halperin on 
March 31, 1993. The actual nomination, however, was not forwarded to 
the Senate until August 6, 1993, on the eve of the August recess. After 
we received the nomination, I advised the administration that the 
committee would proceed with a hearing during the week of September 13, 
following Senate floor debate on the National Defense Authorization 
Act. I noted that our ability to conduct a hearing was contingent upon 
submission of the standard nomination documents that the committee 
requires of all nominees, including: First, the committee's 
questionnaire; second, the conflict of interest opinion from the DOD 
general counsel; third, the conflict of interest opinion from the 
Director of the Office of Government Ethics [OGE]; and fourth, the 
responses to the committee's prehearing policy questions.
  Although the committee received the nominee's questionnaire and the 
conflict of interest opinions prior to September, the committee did not 
have the answers to the prehearing policy questions during the week of 
September 13, the time for the planned hearing. the responses to the 
prehearing policy questions provide the basic foundation for our 
nomination proceedings. Because these were not available during the 
week of the planned hearing, under the committee's standard procedures 
we could not proceed with the planned hearing. Under the circumstances, 
I informed Secretary Aspin on September 16 that the hearing planned for 
that week would have to be postponed.
  We received the responses to the prehearing policy questions on 
September 21. As a practical matter, it was not possible to conduct 
hearings on this nomination at that point because the committee was 
involved in the House-Senate conference on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, which continued from mid-
September until the report was filed on November 10.
  The committee's standard procedure calls for the FBI report on the 
nominee to be reviewed by the chairman and the ranking Republican 
member or their designee. In view of the various issues that arose with 
respect to this nomination, the administration agreed to make the 
report available to all members of the committee. In addition, the 
Republican members of the committee submitted a series of requests to 
the administration for information.

  The committee conducted a public hearing on the nomination on 
November 19, 1993. At that time, I noted: ``We will proceed with this 
nomination in the same manner that the committee has handled all other 
nominations. If credible allegations are presented to the committee, we 
will pursue them.'' I also emphasized the importance of fairness to the 
nominee: ``We will ensure that Dr. Halperin has a full opportunity to 
address all issues that are raised about his nomination.''
  I made it clear that the committee should not simply concern itself 
with allegations about the nomination, but should focus on the full 
range of policy issues related to the new position of Assistant 
Secretary for Democracy and Peacekeeping.
  Dr. Halperin was introduced by a bipartisan group of Senators 
reflecting diverse views on national security issues--Senator Mark 
Hatfield, Senator David Boren, and Senator Joseph Biden. In addition, 
numerous Senators on the committee made statements in support of or in 
opposition to the nomination.
  At the outset of the hearing, I observed that,

       Dr. Halperin has an impressive background. He is a graduate 
     of Columbia College and has a masters and doctorate from 
     Yale. From 1966-1969, he served in the Johnson and Nixon 
     Administrations in the Department of Defense, where he earned 
     the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and on the staff of 
     the National Security Council. From 1974 until 1992, he 
     served as the Director of the Washington Office of the 
     American Civil Liberties Union, where he was an active 
     participant in a wide variety of public policy debates 
     concerning national security issues. In November 1992, he was 
     appointed as a Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for 
     International Peace. In January 1993, he was appointed to 
     serve as a consultant in the Department of Defense, a 
     position he has held pending confirmation.
       Dr. Halperin has taught and lectured widely on a variety of 
     subjects related to national security, and he is a prolific 
     writer. Indeed, it appears that some of my colleagues on the 
     Committee have been among the most avid readers of his books 
     and articles! Dr. Halperin's nomination has received the 
     support of a number of distinguished Americans, including a 
     bipartisan array of former government officials.

  I also noted: ``Notwithstanding Dr. Halperin's impressive resume, it 
is clear that this nomination is controversial and will be contested.'' 
The issues concerning the nomination were explored in detail at the 
hearing. The committee's published record (S. Hrg. 103-446) contains 
the transcript of the November 19, 1993 hearing, as well as Dr. 
Halperin's answers to the committee's prehearing questions.


  Dr. Halperin's responses to issues raised concerning his nomination

  The committee's November 19, 1993 hearing began at 9:31 a.m. and 
lasted until 6:42 p.m., with a brief break for lunch. In that lengthy 
proceeding, involving challenging questions, Dr. Halperin demonstrated 
dignity, seriousness of purpose, and broad understanding of national 
security issues--and patience.
  In addition to setting forth his views on national security policy 
matters, Dr. Halperin directly addressed a variety of allegations 
concerning his fitness for office, and I would like to quote directly 
from his testimony because it deals with a number of charges that were 
reported in the news media and that I think he dealt with at the 
hearing:

       I have been accused of advising the Secretary of Defense 
     not to send armor to Somalia. That is false. I had no 
     knowledge of any request for armor until I read about it in 
     the newspaper after the fact.
       I have been accused of ordering a regional Commander to 
     terminate an exercise. That is false. I called General 
     Joulwan only to obtain information, not to intrude into the 
     chair of command.
       I have been accused of believing that the United States 
     should subordinate its interests to the United Nations, never 
     using force without its consent, and putting American forces 
     at its disposal. That is false. I have never advocated these 
     positions.
       I have been accused of believing that government officials 
     have the right to disclose classified information. That is 
     false. I have consistently stated that the government has the 
     right to fire anyone who does and to impose criminal 
     penalties for the disclosure of such information.
       I have been accused of opposing all counter-intelligence 
     operations. That is false. I have supported effective 
     counter-intelligence measures designed to protect sensitive 
     information.
       I have been accused of aiding Daniel Ellsberg in the 
     disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. That is false. I did not 
     assist in, and had no knowledge of, his disclosure of the 
     Pentagon Papers.
       I have been accused of aiding Philip Agee in the disclosure 
     of the identities of intelligence agents and advocating the 
     disclosure of such identities. That is false. I never 
     assisted Philip Agee in those efforts, and I have condemned 
     such action by him and others. (I did testify at his 
     deportation hearing in England--a matter I would be glad to 
     discuss with the committee.)
       Most recently, I have been accused of traveling abroad for 
     secret meetings with terrorists. That is false. I have had no 
     such meetings, and to my knowledge there are no CIA documents 
     suggesting that I have.

  Numerous questions were raised about these and other issues during 
the course of the hearing, and Dr. Halperin responded in a direct 
manner that reflected well upon his respect for the confirmation 
process. He also acknowledged that had undertaken activities as a DOD 
consultant that were inconsistent with the guidelines applicable to 
nominees, and that he regretted certain statements he had made in the 
early 1970's about U.S. intelligence operations--statements which he 
subsequently abandoned.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I 
believe that the record should reflect that aside from his acknowledged 
activities as a consultant which exceeded the limitations set forth in 
DOD guidelines and committee expectations, none of the allegations of 
improprieties were substantiated in the course of the standard report 
on the nominee by the FBI, in other investigations by the executive 
branch.
  I want to repeat that, Mr. President, because I think the record 
ought to be clear. I believe that the record should reflect that aside 
from his acknowledged activities as a consultant which exceeded the 
limitations set forth in DOD guidelines and committee expectations, 
none of the allegations of improprieties were substantiated in the 
course of the standard report on the nominee by the FBI, in other 
investigations by the executive branch, or in any evidence submitted to 
the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, there is no question that Dr. Halperin's writings and 
activities in the field of national security affairs have provoked 
controversy, and there is no question that his views would have been 
the subject of spirited debate in the committee and on the Senate 
floor. His views on collective military intervention, the relationship 
between the United States and the United Nations, as well as views on 
covert action--all of which were explored in the committee's precon-
firmation questions and in the hearing--are proper subjects 
of debate and would have been appropriate factors to take into account 
during the consideration of the nomination.
  While no nominee looks forward to having his or her nomination become 
the focus of such a debate, I am confident Dr. Halperin understood and 
respected the role of the Senate in examining such issues. Dr. Halperin 
clearly thrives on public policy debate, and I was impressed by the 
care and attention that he gave to each question during the lengthy 
hearing.
  Dr. Halperin currently is serving on the staff of the National 
Security Council. This does not require Senate confirmation. I believe 
that the confirmation process served as an opportunity for Dr. Halperin 
to reexamine and reevaluate his views in light of the experiences of 
the United States over the last quarter century and the challenges we 
face during the 1990's and the years ahead.
  He is now in a position of significant responsibility, and he has the 
opportunity to apply his substantial talents to the cause of a strong 
and effective national defense. I wish him well in that endeavor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                 Washington, DC, January 10, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I write to respectfully request that 
     you not resubmit my name in nomination for the position of 
     Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and 
     Peacekeeping.
       When my old friend Les Aspin told me that he wanted to 
     recommend to you that I be nominated for an Assistant 
     Secretary position in the Defense Department, I was pleased 
     at the prospect of once again serving in the federal 
     government. When you nominated me I was deeply honored.
       At the same time, I believe that Cabinet officers should 
     have the freedom to select their subordinates.
       As I said at my confirmation hearing, I believe that there 
     is no higher calling than to serve the nation, and I am at 
     your disposal should you believe that I can be of assistance 
     to you and your Administration.
           Respectfully yours,
                                               Morton H. Halperin.
                                  ____

                                                  The White House,


                                                   Washington,

                                       Brussels, January 10, 1994.
     Mr. Morton H. Halperin,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mort: I have received your letter asking that I not 
     resubmit your nomination to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
     for Democracy and Peacekeeping. With deep appreciation for 
     your willingness to serve our country and with real regret, I 
     accept your request.
       Yours is a superb record of service and accomplishment 
     dating back over 30 years. Your qualifications speak for 
     themselves, and I am pleased to hear that your willingness to 
     serve my Administration continues unabated.
       At the same time, I appreciate your understanding of the 
     circumstances involved in a new Secretary of Defense coming 
     on board and the tradition of Cabinet officers having the 
     freedom to select subordinates.
       I am confident that this Administration will continue to 
     benefit from your talent and counsel and hope that you will 
     be available for other suitable assignments.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, my good friend, Chairman Nunn, has 
offered information to vindicate Mr. Halperin. I will take the 
opportunity to answer this at a later date. I did not realize this was 
coming up.
  His name was sent over here. We presented statements to show that it 
would be dangerous to put him there, and the President withdrew the 
nomination, but he put him in, I believe, the National Security Office. 
We think it is a very unwise position to take. We think he made a 
mistake. And at a later time I will make a further statement on this 
subject.

                          ____________________