[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  NOMINATION OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL RYAN

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak in support of a 
pending nomination that I do not know exactly when it is going to come 
up because nominations of this type come up very quickly and usually at 
the close of business.
  Madam President, I would like to speak in support of the pending 
nomination of Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Ryan.
  General Ryan is currently the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff.
  He has been nominated to be ``dual-hatted'' as commander, Allied Air 
Forces, Southern Europe, NATO, and commander, 16th Air Force, U.S. Air 
Force, Europe.
  I would like to speak on General Ryan's nomination because it has a 
direct bearing on the pending nomination of Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson.
  General Glosson got in hot water for allegedly having improper 
communications with three members of the 1993 major general promotion 
board and then allegedly lying about it when questioned by 
investigators.
  Well, General Ryan was a member of that selection board.
  He and two other senior officers formally complained that General 
Glosson had communicated with each of them separately regarding the 
integrity of a fellow officer whose name was before the board for 
consideration.
  Improper communications with a promotion board are ``expressly 
forbidden'' by paragraph 11 of Air Force Regulation 36-9. The failure 
to obey this regulation could be a court-martial offense under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has worked very hard in recent 
years to bring some integrity to the military promotion process and 
most particularly to insulate promotion boards from improper influence.
  The rules that were allegedly violated are a direct result of all the 
committee's hard work.
  Because of the serious nature of complaints lodged against General 
Glosson, a joint investigation was launched by the Department of 
Defense inspector general and the Air Force IG.
  The DOD IG was in charge and made all decisions regarding the scope 
and direction of the investigation.
  All parties involved were questioned under oath. The evidence was 
evaluated and a joint report was issued on November 8, 1993.
  The joint report was reviewed and approved by the Judge Advocate 
General and general counsel of the Air Force. The lawyers said: ``The 
findings are supported by the evidence of record.''

  The principal evidence in the case against General Glosson is the 
testimony given by General Ryan and two other senior officers.
  General Ryan testified that approximately 2 weeks after he had been 
officially notified and designated as a member of the selection board, 
General Glosson called him on the telephone.
  General Ryan described the telephone conversation like this:

       LTG Glosson related to me the following: That [General X] 
     had lied to the Chief of Staff [General McPeak], and that the 
     Chief of Staff didn't want him promoted. I asked General 
     Glosson, I said, let me see if I got this right. I was taken 
     aback. [General X] lied to the Chief of Staff, and the Chief 
     of Staff does not want [General X] promoted. And he says, 
     That's it. And I said, I understand the message. And that was 
     the end of the conversation. It was a very short 
     conversation.

  The IG investigators asked General Ryan if he thought General Glosson 
knew he was a member of the board when he called: ``In your mind, were 
you convinced that he [General Glosson] knew you were a member of the 
board?''
  General Ryan replied: ``Oh yes, I'm sure.''
  The IG followed up: ``No doubt of that.''
  General Ryan: ``No doubt.''
  After General Glosson's telephone call, General Ryan testified that 
he felt ``disturbed.'' He said:

       After a point, it started festering in me * * * It really 
     started bugging me * * * I don't think I can get through it * 
     * * I can't sign that piece of paper and swear that I know of 
     no attempt to influence the outcome of the board.

  Madam President, officers who are assigned to such boards take a 
solemn oath to act without prejudice or partiality. And they have a 
duty to request relief if they think the board's proceedings have been 
somehow compromised.
  After considerable anguish, General Ryan asked to be excused from the 
board. He related the substance of his telephone conversation with 
General Glosson to Secretary Widnall, and she subsequently excused him 
from the board.
  General Glosson's testimony presents a somewhat different picture of 
what happened. General Glosson admitted he had the telephone 
conversation with General Ryan. General Glosson admitted that he 
questioned the integrity of General X during the conversation. General 
Glosson said General X ``had lied'' to him in the past. And he even 
admitted saying that ``the chief can't trust'' General X.
  But that is where the similarities ended. General Glosson denied 
telling General Ryan that he and the chief did not want General X 
promoted, and he denied knowing that General Ryan was a member of the 
promotion board.
  General McPeak's testimony did not help General Glosson. General 
McPeak denied that he ever told Glosson that General X was dishonest 
and should not be promoted.
  Madam President, as I said a moment ago, the principal evidence in 
the case is the testimony of those involved.
  What did General Glosson say to General Ryan and the other two 
officers about the fitness of General X for promotion to higher rank?
  Did General Glosson say that Chief of Staff McPeak did not want 
General X promoted?
  Did General Glosson know General Ryan and the others were members of 
the board when he spoke to them?
  These issues are the focus of the testimony.
  The testimony of General Ryan and the other two officers is almost 
identical about what General Glosson supposedly said.
  General Glosson, by comparison, gives a very different version of 
what was said.
  Madam President, it comes down to this: His word against theirs. 
There is no room for a mistake or misunderstanding. There is no way to 
resolve the conflicting testimony.
  What we have here are irreconcilable accounts of what happened. There 
is just one inescapable conclusion: Somebody is lying.
  The inspectors general found that General Ryan's account of his 
telephone conversation with General Glosson was almost identical in 
``timing, substance, and intent'' with General Glosson's alleged 
communications with the other two officers.
  General Ryan's version of General Glosson's comments was corroborated 
by the testimony of the other two senior officers, who said Glosson 
made similar statements to them. There is no evidence that Ryan or the 
others had a motive to lie.
  There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that General Ryan and 
the others conspired to fabricate the allegations against General 
Glosson. What benefit could they possibly derive from doing that?
  Quite to the contrary, General Ryan and the others came forward at 
great personal risk and with no certainty about what the final outcome 
might be.
  The inspectors general believe that General Ryan is telling the 
truth. Everything points in that direction.
  For these reasons, Madam President, I support General Ryan's pending 
nomination.

                          ____________________