On the recordMay 25, 1994
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.
Source
govinfo.gov




