[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________