[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF ADM. HENRY H. MAUZ, JR., TO BE PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST
IN THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Adm. Henry H.
Mauz, Jr., to be placed on the retired list in the grade of admiral.
The Senate resumed consideration of the nomination.
Pending:
Murray motion to recommit the nomination to the Committee
on Armed Forces with instructions.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on the
motion to recommit, on which there shall be 40 minutes debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn]
and the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray].
Who yields time?
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be
equally divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we begin to discuss the motion now
pending regarding the nomination of Admiral Mauz, let me take this
opportunity to express my sincere admiration and gratitude to the
distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee, Senator Sam
Nunn, for the important work he and the Carter delegation did over the
weekend in attempting to resolve the crisis in Haiti through diplomatic
means. Certainly this Nation owes a debt of gratitude to former
President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell, and Senator Nunn for their work in
bringing together the agreement on Haiti which has paved the way for
peaceful entry of our troops.
Like most Americans, I am relieved that our troops are not entering
Haiti in an atmosphere of hostility and resistance. The chairman of the
Armed Services Committee continues to provide invaluable service to our
Nation, and I am proud to have this opportunity to thank him
personally.
Mr. President, since last week, when consideration of this nomination
was interrupted, the Armed Services Committee has worked with the
Senators involved to address the longer-term issues surrounding these
types of nominations. I greatly appreciate the dialog that has occurred
because, as I said in my earlier remarks, the manner in which
nominations are brought to the Senate by the committee and the
executive branch needs to be reviewed so that Senators concerned with
one aspect or another do not have to, in the words of the Senator from
Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] stand sentry over these nominations.
It is difficult to bring these matters before the full Senate for
consideration, but on the other hand, it is impossible to look the
other way when individual service members appear to have legitimate and
unanswered questions.
I think all of my colleagues will agree that today is, indeed, a day
when standing up for the individual service member seems more important
than ever.
Before I go on, let me take this opportunity to offer my prayers and
support for our service men and women who are in the process of being
deployed in Haiti. It is for the individual rank-and-file soldier that
I have taken this issue on, and for that I apologize to no one. They
are on the frontlines on behalf of our great Nation, and I as a Senator
will not shy away from ensuring that their voices are heard.
So with regard to the nomination before us and the larger problems
that are associated with it, it is critical that we put into place
reforms for handling these nominations. But before I address that
specific point, let me address several points that were made last week
during this debate.
Several Senators addressed the question of my motion to recommit, and
I was not provided the opportunity at that time to respond, and I would
like to do so now.
To begin, on the question of allegations surrounding Admiral Mauz, I
must stop here and make an important clarification for the record. One
Senator said in the Chamber last week that I am, and I quote,
``alleging that Admiral Mauz used his position to protect those guilty
of sexual harassment and to cover up alleged improper handling.''
Let me be clear. As I said last week several times, and I shall say
so again today, in no way do I seek to pass judgment on any of the
allegations that have been made regarding the nomination of Admiral
Mauz. I do not have the necessary information to come to a conclusion
one way or the other on this nomination.
I made the motion to recommit this nomination back to the committee
for a hearing because in my review of the allegations surrounding this
nomination, more questions were raised than were answered. And I
believe the allegations raised against Admiral Mauz are sufficiently
troubling to merit a public hearing.
My bottom line is that I strongly believe the American people deserve
to know that when the U.S. Senate votes to confer high honor on our
Nation's military leadership, we do so with clear justification and
solid grounding in the facts of an individual's career. It is my firmly
held belief that those whom we honor in the Senate should serve to a
higher standard. So long as I am asked to continue to vote on these
types of nominations, this shall remain my standard.
With regard to the Admiral Mauz nomination we have been considering,
I remain deeply troubled by the difficulty I experienced when trying to
get straight information and straight facts from the Navy. Again, I
must repeat for the clarification of those who question my motives here
in the Chamber, the main reason I felt obliged to bring this issue
before the Senate was because the Navy provided me with conflicting
information. I did not do so because I wanted to pass judgment on
Admiral Mauz, and I did not do so because I wanted to be, in the words
of one Senator, ``politically correct.'' That is just plain wrong.
As I noted in my previous remarks, I have had significant dialog with
the Navy on the issues surrounding the current nomination, and again I
say for the record that if all of the exchanges I have had with the
Navy had been direct and clear, I would not be here today.
Unfortunately, the information I received from the Navy has at times
been extremely confusing and downright inaccurate. Other times, the
Navy's information has been full and adequate, but it has not been
consistent and reliable overall.
My own process of talking and working with the Navy to clear up these
issues has left me very uneasy. If I as a Senator have had a tough time
getting adequate responses from the Navy--and I have direct access to
the highest level of leadership there--I can only imagine the
difficulty that faced Lt. Darlene Simmons or Senior Chief George Taylor
when questions persisted for them regarding their own cases.
Let us be clear. The Darlene Simmons case landed at the feet of
Admiral Mauz because she had repeatedly worked within her chain of
command only to see that system fail her. When she finally worked her
way up to the level of Admiral Mauz, it was because others in her chain
of command had failed to stop the retaliation she was repeatedly
subjected to after she reported a serious case of sexual harassment.
This is not a point in dispute by the Navy or anyone else. So, again,
for the record, it was perfectly appropriate--in fact, unfortunately,
quite necessary--that the Lieutenant Simmons case was brought to the
attention of Admiral Mauz.
And, finally, during the course of last week's debate, just raising
questions on the issue of sexual harassment and whistle blowing brought
on some rather personal attacks against me. It was implied that simply
because I raised questions I somehow did not understand the military or
the chain of command. I will not be intimidated by those kinds of
remarks. I intend to debate the merits of this issue as we do with all
other issues and not get involved in questioning the motivations of
Senators who have raised them.
Obviously, these are difficult and troubling issues, and, as our very
able chairman has said, it is clear that we are going through a
difficult transition with the military, and significant improvements to
the system will have to be made. Before we proceed with the resolution
of the process issue before us, I will now yield to the chairman for
his comments.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Washington for her thoughtful remarks and for her kind comments about
me and the overall remarks.
Mr. President, what is the time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia has 14
minutes 44 seconds.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate will address
this issue today and complete action on it. I addressed this nomination
in detail on Monday, September 12, and again on Wednesday, September
14. Today, I will simply summarize the proceedings of the Armed
Services Committee on this nomination, the nomination which received
the unanimous support of all 22 members of the committee.
Admiral Mauz has served our Nation in uniform with skill, with
professionalism, and with dedication. His career has included direct
combat experience and patrolling the rivers of Vietnam, commander of
the forces which concluded successful strikes against terrorist-related
targets in Libya, establishment of the maritime embargo against Iraq
after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and development of the plans for naval
involvement in the Persian Gulf war.
He is presently serving as U.S. commander in chief of the U.S.
Atlantic Command, one of the most senior, responsible positions in the
Armed Forces of the United States.
The Committee on Armed Services has thoroughly reviewed this
nomination, which we received on May 10, 1994. We considered
information from the Department of Defense concerning the informal
counseling that Admiral Mauz received related to travel to the Naval
Air Station in Bermuda. We twice deferred action on the nomination to
consider materials submitted by the Government Accountability Project,
a nonprofit, private organization which alleged: First, that Admiral
Mauz retaliated against Senior Chief Master-at-Arms George R. Taylor,
one of the individuals who had spoken to the news media about travel of
senior officers to Naval Air Station Bermuda; and second, that Admiral
Mauz was aware of sexual harassment against Lt. Darlene Simmons, a
female officer in a subordinate command within the Atlantic Fleet, that
he suppressed findings of his own command's inquiry into the matter,
and that he failed to order any corrective action on behalf of
Lieutenant Simmons.
Each of these allegations was investigated by the Department of
Defense and found to be unsubstantiated. The Department of the Navy, on
behalf of the Department of Defense, has responded to each inquiry made
by the committee with detailed, factual information, which I placed in
the Record when the committee reported the nomination on August 12,
1994. Subsequently, the committee received additional questions, and we
obtained detailed, factual responses from the Navy, demonstrating that
the allegations were unsubstantiated. I placed this material in the
Record on September 12 and September 14.
The facts demonstrate that Admiral Mauz had no role in any of the
actions taken against Senior Chief Taylor. The facts demonstrate that
he took reasonable actions to address the sexual harassment of
Lieutenant Simmons. The facts make it clear that he played no role in
the hospitalization of Lieutenant Simmons. Each of the allegations of
reprisal was reviewed not only by the Navy, but also by the DOD
inspector general. There has been no finding of wrongdoing or
inappropriate action by Admiral Mauz.
Mr. President, Admiral Mauz should be commended, not condemned, for
the personal responsibility that he exercised with respect to the
allegations of sexual harassment made by Lieutenant Simmons. To put
this matter in perspective, we must remember that there were three
levels of command between him and the ship where the sexual harassment
took place, the U.S.S. Canopus. As the commander in chief of the
Atlantic Command, Admiral Mauz has under his command 224 ships, 1,480
aircraft, 27 bases, 12,000 military officers, 125,000 enlisted
personnel, and 10,000 DOD civilians, He is responsible for an annual
operations and maintenance budget of $4.6 billion for a fleet that has
been involved in operations ranging from the Arctic North to South
America, including:
Supporting the Haiti embargo, the war on drugs, and Cuban migration
operations;
Providing forces today for Haitian operations; and
Providing forces for regular deployments to the Mediterranean and
Central Command areas.
When he learned of the incident involving Lieutenant Simmons, he took
resonable actions to monitor the investigation and actions of
subordinate commanders.
None of the additional material we received in response to inquiries
since the committee reported the nomination has changed, in my view,
that basic committee finding.
Admiral Mauz did not simply delegate this matter to a subordinate
command--which would have been entirely appropriate--but gave it direct
personal attention. The direct involvement of his personal assistant
for women's affairs, Comdr. Cathleen Miller, led to the prompt removal
of the offending officer from Lieutenant Simmons' ship. He personally
intervened two times with the Chief of Naval Personnel to ensure that
she was retained on active duty. Through Commander Miller, he ensured
that Lieutenant Simmons had an opportunity to communicate directly with
this office throughout the conduct and review of the investigation. He
implemented a series of specific training and policy actions to combat
sexual harassment.
Mr. President, the sexual harassment of Lieutenant Simmons was wrong.
There was no excuse for what occurred. It was wrong. It was wrong and
that is not in dispute here in this nomination.
Admiral Mauz acted promptly and repeatedly to address her concerns.
Some may argue that he should have done more. But it simply cannot be
argued that he turned a blind eye toward sexual harassment.
Mr. President, this nomination has the vigorous support of the
administration. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, in a letter to the
committee dated September 12, 1994, stated:
Admiral Mauz has served his nation for over thirty-five
years. His proven record of exemplary service * * * has
clearly earned the honor of retirement with four stars.
Secretary Perry added:
Admiral Mauz's relief has been confirmed by the Senate and
is ready to assume command. The operational demands of the
Atlantic Fleet area of responsibility make it essential that
we proceed with a smooth and timely transition. I strongly
endorse the Administration's and the Committee's
recommendation that Admiral Mauz be confirmed to retire in
his four star grade and request expeditious Senate action.
Mr. President, I understand the concern about the allegations made
against Admiral Mauz.
I certainly understand the sincere and dedicated concern of the
Senator from Washington. I understand her questions. I think the
questions have been entirely appropriate, and we have been pleased to
work with her in trying to secure prompt answers to those questions.
The committee regarded the allegations as worthy of review, and did
not act on the nomination until there was sufficient time for
development of the key facts and consideration of that information by
the committee, and in turn certainly by the Senate. We have made that
information available to the Senate, and every Senator can reach his or
her own conclusion on the merits of the nomination. In the opinion of
the Armed Services Committee, the 35 years of dedicated service to the
Nation by Admiral Mauz warrants retirement in grade, and I urge my
colleagues to support the committee's recommendation and the
recommendations of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time to the Senator?
Mr. NUNN. How much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes fifty seconds.
Mr. NUNN. How much time does the Senator from Washington retain?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seven and one-half minutes.
Mr. NUNN. I believe we have plenty of time.
I yield to the Senator 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana [Mr.
Coats].
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for
yielding.
Haiti
First of all, while he is on the floor, I want to add my commendation
to him for his extraordinary efforts over this past weekend in
resolving a situation which would very likely have put our men and
women in uniform in a much more difficult situation. They are safely
occupying the island nation of Haiti thanks to the tireless efforts of
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia.
I want to personally thank him for his efforts in that regard.
The Mauz Nomination
I also want to thank him for his efforts here in resolving what has
been a difficult question. I regret that the distinguished 35-year
career of Admiral Mauz is ending with a cloud hanging over his
retirement.
I am pleased that the issue has been resolved. There may very well
need to be a review of procedures within the Department of the Navy.
But after very thorough examination about Admiral Mauz's involvement in
this particular issue, the Armed Services Committee, and I personally,
have concluded that Admiral Mauz has taken no adverse action in this
regard. In fact, he took action that was beyond what he could have
taken, because he recognized this as a sensitive matter and wanted to
be personally involved in assuring the rights of the complainant. I
think the record demonstrates that.
I think it is very unfortunate that an individual who has served this
Nation so well finds his nomination held up while an issue relative to
a situation under his command--but in which he, I think, performed
admirably--is resolved. I am pleased that it is now resolved. I am
hoping that the U.S. Senate can overwhelmingly, if not unanimously,
confirm this nomination for retirement of Admiral Mauz in full grade of
admiral. He has provided this Nation with extraordinary service.
Senator Nunn outlined some of that service. He has been placed at
levels of the highest responsibility and has conducted himself
admirably in every regard. I just hope now that he can secure this
retirement in full grade with the overwhelming, if not unanimous,
support of the Senate.
I regret that one of the ways that we have to get attention is to
utilize situations where individuals are involved and, unfortunately,
it goes to their character and reputation. And I hate to see Admiral
Mauz having any cloud hanging over his 35 years of distinguished
service to this Nation. I trust now that this is satisfactorily
resolved and we can give him our full support in the vote that is about
to occur.
I yield back any time remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to turn to the larger issue facing
the Senate with regard to how these nominations are handled.
Senators need to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that when
individual service members have made serious allegations and charges in
relation to a nomination, those allegations have been adequately
addressed and given full consideration by the executive branch, the
committee, and the full Senate.
It is critical that we put into place reforms for handling these
nominations. The very first thing we need is direct access to timely
and reliable information. We need to know that legitimately raised
allegations and concerns have been thoroughly reviewed. And as the
Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has said, we need to know that
questions asked are questions answered. We need to ensure that all
relevant voices have had an opportunity to be heard before these
nominations come to the Senate floor.
What we are essentially asking for is an additional safeguard in the
review process of these nominations by the executive branch when
significant allegations persist. Toward that goal, I have joined
Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Moseley-Braun, and Feinstein, in writing to
Secretary of Defense William Perry, requesting serious review of the
process.
I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 19, 1994.
Hon. William Perry,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Perry: During the last several months, the
United States Senate has considered and debated the
retirement of two Admirals--Admiral Frank Kelso and Admiral
Henry Mauz--at the rank of four stars.
During each of these debates, the five Democratic women
Senators, among others, raised serious questions about how
the Navy handled incidents of sexual harassment and whistle
blowing. During each of these debates, we also raised issues
about the process of evaluating allegations made regarding
the Admirals' conduct. In each case, the seriousness of the
allegations and questions raised were underestimated.
Let us be clear--we support the United States military.
What we are concerned about is the integrity of the process.
We owe it to the United States Navy, the United States Senate
and the American people to have a sound process anticipating
these issues.
When a controversial or high profile retirement is sent to
the Senate, the Department of Defense must anticipate
questions that will be raised and must anticipate the
information Senators need to proceed on the recommendations.
We cannot continue to address controversial promotions or
retirements in this fashion. The Department of Defense must
develop a process for reviewing these types of cases before
they come to the floor of the Senate. We look forward to
hearing from you as quickly as possible.
Barbara Mikulski.
Barbara Boxer.
Patty Murray.
Carol Moseley-Braun.
Dianne Feinstein.
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
Mrs. MURRAY. In addition, I believe I have the chairman's commitment
to continue the work his committee is doing in this regard, so that we
can develop a better process to deal with these types of situations.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I appreciate the concerns of the Senator
from Washington. I understand her concern about certain communications
she received from Navy officials about this nomination.
It is important that legitimate allegations about nominations be
reviewed in a careful manner that provides information upon which the
Senate can rely. In my judgment, the present system works well in most
cases. From time to time, however, we do encounter situations in which
the committee requires further review because we are not satisfied with
the quality of the response from the executive branch.
As I have said before, I believe the committee received the
information it needed to act on this nomination. In addition, we
submitted to the Navy questions prepared by the Senator from
Washington, as well as other Senators, as well as their followup
questions, and we insisted upon prompt answers from the Navy. I placed
these answers in the Record on September 14, 1994.
I recognize that this is a matter upon which Senators can disagree.
Our goal should be to ensure that Senators have confidence in the
information provided by the executive branch from which they are to
make their judgments on nominations.
The allegations concerning nominees can involve a wide variety of
issues, ranging from criminal to administrative matters. The issues may
involve new allegations, or they may involve issues that have been
previously investigated by the agency concerned. Given the variety of
circumstances, there can be no one procedure for investigating and
reporting on all of these matters. What we need to ensure, however, is
that the information received reflects careful review of the issues and
that it represents a clear response to the allegations made.
Quite apart from this particular nomination, Admiral Mauz's, the
issues that have been raised with respect to a variety of other
nominations we have considered during this Congress have led me to
conclude that an assessment of the process by which the executive
branch and the committee review both civilian and military nominations
is in order. I am committed to engaging in a review that involves
dialog with the executive branch, with a view toward implementing
changes that may be warranted later this year so that they can be put
in place prior to receiving nominations in the next Congress. Should
any legislative changes be required, we will seek to have them enacted
in the next Congress.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I appreciate the chairman's commitment
to reassess the process whereby the executive branch and the committee
review both civilian and military nominations. I agree that it is
critical that this review take place promptly so that any changes can
be implemented by the end of this calendar year.
I thank the Senator from Georgia for his ongoing assistance with this
problem, and I take this opportunity to once again thank the Committee
on Armed Services for going the extra mile throughout the process to
address my concerns.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Washington and her colleagues for
the constructive role they have played in raising what have been
difficult and very legitimate questions.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is remaining, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes 12
seconds.
Mr. NUNN. I have a procedural question, Madam President. There are a
couple of other Senators who want to speak on this question. If the
motion to recommit is withdrawn, is the time still open for debate,
under the control as previously allocated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion to recommit is withdrawn, the
consent agreement requires us to vote immediately on the nomination.
Mr. NUNN. I was told that a rollcall vote was in order, and if a
rollcall vote was requested, that rollcall vote would be deferred until
after the caucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NUNN. It is my intent to ask for a rollcall vote. So I guess my
question now is: If a rollcall vote is ordered, is any time remaining
for debate on this nomination?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If a rollcall vote is ordered, the time
between now and 12:30 would be open for debate.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, before I withdraw my motion to recommit
this nomination, I want to be very clear about why I am taking that
action.
I believe that with the distinguished chairman's commitment to
address the overall problem as to how these cases are reviewed and
handled by the Defense Department, we have moved the debate forward in
an important way. I hope the end result will be that all members of the
service will be better served--no matter how high ranking or how
junior. This represents real progress in my mind. I thank those
colleagues who have come to me with their support, and I assure each of
them that I will continue to work with them as we seek resolution to
this problem.
I say with deep regret that I continue to have serious and unanswered
questions about the cases related to this current nomination before us.
Unfortunately, I have been at this for many weeks now and I have come
to the conclusion that the current process we are involved in is
inadequate to the task of allowing for a full venting of the Simmons
and Taylor allegations.
I have come to the conclusion that the best use of my time and energy
is not on a single nomination, but on bringing about reform and change
to the overall system so that it is more fair in the future.
I am committed to working with the committee to see that the system
is set straight. And I believe important progress can and should be
made by the end of this year. Failing that, you can bet that I will be
back next year standing sentry to every nomination that I have to vote
on.
In America, we believe very strongly in the power of a single vote.
And so I say without apology that I will never hesitate to ensure that
my vote here in the U.S. Senate is available to give voice to the
servicemen and women who so bravely stand sentry over this country. I
owe them that much.
Madam President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes and 3 seconds remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Is the Senator from Georgia controlling time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 36 seconds; the
Senator from Washington has 2 minutes.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, what business will be addressed by the
Senate following this time expiration?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will stay on this nomination,
debating it, until 12:30.
Mr. NUNN. So even though the time would expire on the motion to
commit, there will be time for other comments on the nomination before
the rollcall vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There will be time
remaining until 12:30 for comments on the nomination.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
I yield to the Senator from Virginia all of my 36 seconds, every one
of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask for the yeas and nays on
the nomination?
Mr. NUNN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 36
seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I tender my apologies for being late
this morning. I had a routine eye exam and did not know that this had
been scheduled.
Madam President, my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The time has expired.
The Senator from Washington has 2 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, since a rollcall vote has been asked
for on the nomination, let me make very clear that I will reluctantly
vote ``no''. It is not my preference to take a position on the
nomination itself. I do not believe that we have the necessary
information to come to a conclusion one way or another on this
nomination. There are very important, unanswered questions in my mind
and lingering doubts that remain that the current review process has
failed to answer. So on the nomination, if we are required to have a
vote, I will reluctantly be voting ``no''.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit
the nomination to the committee be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so
ordered.
All time has expired.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the business now before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the nomination of Adm.
Henry Mauz, Jr.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, do I understand that the nomination will
be pending for the next approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Within which time Senators may address the nomination and
there is no control of the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, it is my intent to keep this nomination
pending as long as anyone wants to speak. At such time when we do not
have people to speak on the nomination and it appears to the Senator
from Georgia the debate has been concluded, I will ask unanimous
consent that we go back into legislative session for a period of
morning business so Senators can speak up to 10 minutes each until
12:30. That would mean we would no longer be on this nomination.
So if the Senator wanted to speak on this or other things in morning
business, that would be permitted.
Mr. WARNER. I wish to exercise my right to such time as I may
require, which I anticipate will not be in excess of 10 minutes.
Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Admiral Mauz to
be retired in the grade of admiral. I have reviewed carefully the
allegations against Admiral Mauz and the investigations of each of
those allegations. I cannot find any basis for denying this superb,
professional naval officer the right and privilege of being retired in
the grade in which he has served honorably since July 1992.
First, let me say that I, along with every Senator I know in this
chamber, abhor sexual harassment in any form. But Admiral Mauz has not
been accused of sexual harassment. The allegations are, generally, that
he did not respond adequately to a sexual harassment case within his
command. Based on the results of the pertinent investigations which I
have reviewed, I do not agree that the allegation has been
substantiated.
I want all my colleagues to know that the chairman and ranking member
have gone far beyond the normal process to ascertain the facts in this
nomination. They have conducted numerous inquiries, held several
executive sessions of the committee with lengthy discussions and
consulted frequently with the leadership of the Navy.
Madam President, the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable John Dalton
and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Boorda, have also been fully
cooperative and engaged in the investigation regarding this nomination.
The leadership of the Navy, and indeed, all elements of the Navy have
been totally cooperative and responsive to the Armed Services
Committee. I am sure I speak for all members of the committee in
expressing our appreciation to Secretary Dalton, Admiral Boorda, and
all those in the Navy who have endeavored to assist the committee in
resolving this matter.
It is becoming obvious just how rancorous even the most routine of
nominations is becoming for not only the Armed Services Committee but
the Senate. The chairman and ranking member are now required to spend
far more time and energy on these nominations than any of us have
experienced in years past. More and more of the time of the committee,
including the committee staff, is consumed ascertaining the facts in an
increasing number of allegations against nominees. I want to take this
opportunity to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their
patience, competence and perseverance in these matters. They are doing
it completely objectively and very thoroughly, together with a highly
qualified staff.
Madam President, it is obvious to me and I believe to all my
colleagues that these nominations are becoming increasingly difficult.
It should also be apparent to those in the military services that all
military nominations are becoming more difficult to deal with and they
should do all they can in the preparation--that is, in the Department
of Defense--before they send them to the Senate.
Madam President, as I indicated earlier, I support the retirement of
Admiral Mauz in his current grade of admiral. Admiral Mauz has had a
distinguished naval career spanning some 35 years, which has included
critically important naval commands in combat. In all these positions
of immense responsibility, he has served with distinction. His
effectiveness, professionalism, and integrity were continually
recognized in his naval career and he was rewarded with consistent
promotions attaining the highest flag rank, that of admiral.
The President has nominated Admiral Mauz to be placed on the retired
list at his current grade of admiral. The Armed Services Committee--
after fully reviewing all the allegations against him--has voted to
recommend favorably his nomination to the Senate. I fully support this
nomination and I urge all my colleagues to support it also.
I would just like to conclude, Madam President, with a few
observations based on many years of experience in dealing with the
professional officers, not only in the Navy but all branches of the
service. These are highly dedicated people and they do their very best
to adapt to the ever-changing laws and indeed the policies of this
country.
In this instance, I have known Admiral Mauz personally and observed
his work over many years. We have to bear in mind that at the time
these allegations were raised, his command looked like a pyramid. He
was on the top of literally thousands of people under his direct
supervision. It is my judgment, and that of the committee, that he
handled this quite well. But I am concerned about the increasing number
of allegations, particularly in the area of sexual harassment. This is
a new area, in some respects, which is long overdue to be examined with
great care by the military and, indeed, those of us here in the Senate
who have this special responsibility of reviewing the retirements when
recommended by the President of the United States.
But I have always been of the impression that a retirement is
something to be viewed not only in terms of that individual who served
in uniform but his or her spouse, as the case may be, and, indeed, the
children. It represents an investment of a family life; a career,
indeed, is a family investment. We have seen evident the pictures of
the men and women of the Armed Forces who have been deployed into the
Haiti situation and observed the stress on the families left behind.
We should bear in mind, as we look at these promotions as well as the
retirements, that it is a family situation, particularly in the case of
a retirement where an officer, in this instance, has devoted in excess
of 30 years and his family has been with him by his side. When we look
at a challenge--to taking away part of that earned retirement, if it is
to be taken is the judgment of the Senate, or awarded if it is the
judgment of the Senate, whichever case--it is to both the officer and
his family. That is why I look very carefully at these and I urge all
Senators to do likewise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in recent days the committee received a
number of additional questions about this nomination which we provided
to the Navy. I ask unanimous consent the Navy's response be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of the Navy,
Washington, DC, September 19, 1994.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Attached are responses to five
additional questions forwarded from your Committee for the
response of the Commander Cathleen A. Miller, U.S. Navy,
regarding the pending confirmation of Admiral Henry H. Mauz,
Jr.
I hope that Commander Miller's responses to these
additional questions are helpful and will serve to resolve
the matter.
A similar letter has been sent to Senator Thurmond.
Sincerely,
John H. Dalton.
Enclosure:
Per your request, I have posed the following questions to
Commander Cathleen Miller by telephone and she has provided
the following responses:
1. Question: What is the name of the medical officer who
was on board the U.S.S. Canopus and who referred LT Simmons
for psychiatric observation?
Answer: The ship's senior medical officer, LT Michelle
Burkardt, recommended that LT Simmons be evaluated by a
psychiatrist at the Naval Hospital, Naval Air Station
Jacksonville. The junior medical officer, LT Ken Hildreth
concurred in that recommendation.
2. Question: On what date did the medical officer refer her
to the psychiatrist at the Naval Hospital, Naval Air Station
Jacksonville?
Answer: Oct. 9, 1992.
3. Question: In the course of your investigation and
follow-on conversations with LT Simmons, did she ever allege
that LT Burkardt, LT Hildreth, or Dr. Quinones acted in
reprisal for her sexual harassment allegations?
Answer: No.
4. Question: In the course of your investigation and
follow-on conversation with LT Simmons, did she ever lodge a
complaint against LT Burkardt, LT Hildreth, or Dr. Quinones
for their actions with respect to the referral, either as a
separate complaint or in conjunction with her complaints
against others?
Answer: She did not lodge a complaint. In the course of my
investigation, she verbally informed me she did not agree
with the referral because she believed it was unnecessary. In
my discussion with LT Burkardt, the senior medical officer,
and LT Hildreth, the junior medical officer, both provided me
with specific medical reasons for the referral, which were
validated by Dr. Quinones, the psychiatrist at the Naval
Hospital, Naval Air Station Jacksonville.
5. Question: In the course of your investigation and
follow-on conversations with LT Simmons, did she ever lodge a
complaint against LT Burkardt, LT Hildreth, or Dr. Quinones
with respect to the quality of medical care during the
October 9-13 period, from her referral through release from
the Naval Hospital, Naval Air Station Jacksonville?
Answer: No.
____________________