[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    NOMINATION OF BUSTER C. GLOSSON

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is one advantage to being in the 
Chamber to listen to debate on other issues than on what a Member might 
be speaking because I probably had an opportunity to hear more of the 
pros and cons on the California desert issue than I would have watching 
it on television in my office. So I think that there have been good 
presentations on that issue.
  Of course, I am not speaking on that issue. I wish to speak on these 
nominations, and to start out with I wish to concentrate on Lieutenant 
General Glosson.
  Some of my colleagues have wondered why the Senate needs to be 
spending this weekend considering nominations of three Air Force 
officers, and I think it is very legitimate for that to be asked. Of 
course, I share their wonderment because in my view the Senate should 
not be considering these nominations at this very late date. Of course, 
the majority leader sets the agenda around here.
  If he wanted to not bring these nominations up, he would not have to 
and we could all go home. Wasting the Senate's time on these tainted 
nominations is a very interesting reflection of the priorities that 
people have placed on this institution. Earlier I mentioned how we 
should be debating the issues that are important to the American people 
like congressional coverage or unfunded mandates. I only mentioned 
those two because those were the ones that we were dealing with last 
night as we closed business. Well, there are other items as well.
  What about the 25-percent health care deduction for the self-
employed? That deduction has been available to people for I believe 10 
or more years and it ran out last year. We are going to have self-
employed people of America who have traditionally wanted to deduct 
their health care from their taxes, their health care insurance from 
their taxes, or at least up to that 25-percent. They are not going to 
be able to do that. They are going to get hit with a big, huge tax 
increase this year because Congress has failed to act on that tax 
problem. But that is an issue that everyone agrees on. But for some 
reason or other, it is not the same priority as these tainted 
nominations that we are going to be dealing with. Just try to figure it 
out. It is very difficult to figure it out.
  I along with many others have been pushing for renewing the 25 
percent deduction ever since we failed on the health care reform issue. 
I have even offered an amendment in the Finance Committee that I serve 
on and was told by Chairman Moynihan that the issue was a priority. 
When asked yesterday if the Senate would deal with the health care 
deduction issue, apparently there was not enough time left to deal with 
that issue. But of course, we have 2 or 3 days here at the end of the 
session to spend time on tainted Air Force nominations. Just try to 
figure it out, I cannot.
  This is a prime example of why Congress might be held in low esteem 
by the people when we could be dealing with the important issues of the 
day. In our limited time we fritter it away on tainted nominations that 
would never be approved if the American people were able to vote on 
them.
  Well, I hope that will change in future years. I do not know whether 
it will or not. But people this November are going to have an 
opportunity to speak to that point.
  As I said earlier in this day, there are games that can be played in 
this process of legislation. We have waited on these nominations which 
I am interested in speaking on until the 11th hour. I said on one of 
these how I was ready to speak last October, another one in January or 
February of this year, another one in April. But here they come at the 
11th hour. There is some intimidation with that. I do not know whether 
it is meant or not, or maybe I am intimidated. I do not know. But it 
does seem like it is putting off to the last minute things that could 
have been done before. But I hope that I will not be intimidated in 
this process because I think that we need to explore these nominations 
very thoroughly. I think we need to get the entire record out on the 
table. We need to debate such matters at the 11th hour if that is the 
way the game is going to be played.
  I would like to suggest to my colleagues why I am here today 
discussing the nomination of Gen. Buster Glosson, and that he should 
not be promoted by the U.S. Senate to retire with a third star. And I 
want my colleagues to understand that this is indeed a promotion. The 
general officer announcement put out by the Department of Defense on 
this nomination announces that Gen. Glosson has been nominated ``for 
advancement.'' It is up to the Senate now to determine if General 
Glosson's record since his last promotion warrants one final promotion.
  It has been our tradition here in the Senate to show deference to 
departments and administrations for nominations and for promotions. I 
am second to no one in showing such deference. My record squarely 
reflects that. When questions about nominees arise it is the burden of 
Senators or committees to persuade our colleagues that the nominee is 
not fit for confirmation. But all things being equal, the Senate does 
show deference in the confirmation process.
  In this case, Mr. President, the case of General Buster Glosson, all 
things are not equal. The circumstances make this a unique case. There 
is a record on General Glosson resulting from a criminal investigation 
by the independent office of the inspector general of the Department of 
Defense. That record says the general tampered with the promotion board 
and that he lied under oath about what he did; period. That is 
potentially a court-martial offense. Subsequent panels examined the 
same evidence as the inspector general. These subsequent panels came 
away with the same conclusion for the same reasons.
  Some who support General Glosson might have hoped that the panel's 
report would overturn what the IG said. But it did not. It actually 
reinforced the IG's conclusions. The panel concluded that General 
Glosson tampered with the promotion board. That in and of itself is 
potentially a court-martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice. The only difference between the IG report and the panel's 
report was that the panel did not conclude that the general had lied. 
But the panel, Mr. President, is not persuasive on this issue.
  First, the IG interviewed the general a couple of weeks after the 
alleged activity when his memory was and should have been very fresh. 
The panel did not interview him until an entire year after the fact. 
The panel is therefore in a weak position to be able to test the 
credibility of the IG's conclusions on this point.
  In addition, the panel said that the three complainants against 
General Glosson had told the truth. While the panel said General 
Glosson did not lie, it said that he was mistaken. It also did not say 
that he was truthful. Let me emphasize that. It did not say that he was 
truthful. And it said that he was evasive and it said that he was 
misleading. It says that what he said versus what the three generals 
said were irreconcilable. In other words, the panel all but said the 
general lied.
  Of course, this is a game of semantics. This panel made a political 
judgment, not an investigative one like the IG did. The IG did it like 
a criminal investigation. In my view, the panel ``Steinerized'' the 
investigation. Let me explain what that means. The ``Steinerizing'' of 
this investigation. You remember Josh Steiner, do you not? He is the 
young Treasury staffer who testified on the Whitewater matter before 
the committees of Congress. He was the one with the diary, if you 
remember. When he testified he denied, if you remember, what he had 
written in his very own diary. Instead, Josh Steiner danced and he 
bobbed and he weaved around the issue. In short, he denied the obvious. 
And that is what this panel did. It denied the obvious.
  When the panel concludes that the general was evasive and that the 
general was misleading when it says that the three generals told the 
truth, when it says their testimony versus his are irreconcilable, when 
it never says that Buster Glosson told the truth, when it says he 
ultimately remembered a version of events that was favorable to him but 
substantially inaccurate, and when it resorts to saying ``we believe he 
never deliberately lied but is simply mistaken,'' then, Mr. President, 
that panel is denying the obvious and so it ``Steinerized'' the issue.
  There is an old Malaysian saying. ``Anything with scales counts as a 
fish.'' Mr. President, what we have here is a fish.
  Regardless of this game of semantics, the fact still remains that the 
panel agreed with the IG on virtually all accounts. In fact, in some 
instances it went even further. And so the panel does not overturn what 
the IG did, in which case deference must be shown to the independent 
IG's investigation. I will say more about that shortly.
  Given the record on General Glosson, which is the result of a 
criminal investigation, and which criminal investigation was signed off 
on by the Air Force judge advocate and by the Air Force general 
counsel; and given, two, that the subsequent panel review substantiated 
the IG report and failed to sufficiently overturn the IG's findings of 
lying under oath, the burden of proof should be on those of my 
colleagues who are pushing this general's nomination.
  A dark cloud still hangs over General Glosson's name. He tampered 
with a promotion board, and he was not truthful about what he did.
  Let me, Mr. President, just go back a little bit and remind my 
colleagues that they will read letters from members of the Armed 
Services Committee that General Glosson should be promoted because he 
has had an outstanding military record as an F-4 pilot in Vietnam; had 
primary responsibility for planning and implementing an air campaign in 
Operation Desert Storm; had service as an Air Force Deputy Chief of 
Staff for plans and operations.
  There is not a thing in this letter that is not absolutely true about 
General Glosson. General Glosson has a record as a military person that 
he can be proud of and that his backers can be proud of, and I do not 
want to detract from that. But we are talking about a General Glosson 
who, after this, after he had been promoted because of past service, 
was interfering with the promotion board for an Air Force promotion. 
That is so serious that three generals resigned from the promotion 
board. As I stated, what the DOD general counsel had to say about it, 
and what the Air Force judge advocate had to say about it--it was 
wrong. Also, the Secretary of the Air Force took action against General 
Glosson. These generals resigned because there was tampering by General 
Glosson with the promotion board that was considering promotions of 
other people in the Air Force. That is a very, very serious offense.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee found the Department of Defense's 
consideration of General Glosson so questionable in the first stage 
that they sent it back to the Department of Defense for 
reconsideration, and that is where this panel was set up. So you have 
the panel saying that he may have been mistaken. But the point is that 
the inspector general said that he lied. The inspector general said he 
lied under oath. The panel did not say that he did not lie. The panel 
did not say that he was truthful. The panel spoke about ``mistake,'' or 
``mistaken notions,'' or maybe ``too far away to understand.'' Now, you 
are comparing an inspector general's investigation and questioning of 
General Glosson 2 weeks after he supposedly tried to impact the 
decision of the promotion panel. And then you have the review of it a 
year later by a panel set up just to do that. And I would ask you, 
where should the most weight be? On what the IG says, or what the panel 
says?
  I think the issue here, Mr. President, is all about integrity. 
Debating against General Glosson is not easy for me. I do not delight 
in this. But it is important enough that I cannot turn away from the 
obligation we have to all those who proudly wear the uniforms of each 
of our military services, and that obligation is to demand the 
preservation of integrity in the promotion process of military 
officers.
  I would like to describe the importance of maintaining integrity in 
this process, Mr. President, and I begin with the most appropriate 
commentary on this issue that I have heard anywhere.
  The distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd, 
recently spoke eloquently and persuasively about this issue. He was 
speaking at a hearing on February 3 of this year before the Armed 
Services Subcommittee of Force Requirement and Personnel. That was the 
hearing on the cheating scandal at the United States Naval Academy. 
Again, Senator Byrd was involved in a hearing about a cheating scandal 
at the U.S. Naval Academy. During the hearing, Senator Byrd spoke about 
the importance of leadership, of integrity. Every one of us Senators 
ought to be proud of the approach that Senator Byrd took. He spoke 
about setting a good example, and he spoke about sending the right 
signal. He said the following:

       A good commander must have two qualities: He or she must be 
     able to direct the battle successfully. That is a 
     requirement.

  But a good commander must also have what Senator Byrd describes as 
``clean hands.''
  A commander must have clean hands or he or she should not pass.
  Of course, the Senator from West Virginia credits this principle to a 
conversation between two soldier statesmen in ancient Athens as 
recounted by Plutarch. Mr. President, having clean hands is synonymous 
with honesty and with integrity. That should be as lucid to us today as 
it was to Greek statesmen 2,500 years ago.
  Integrity is the foundation, integrity is the cornerstone of 
leadership.
  When a military commander's integrity has been called into question, 
then those who would follow him or her into battle may not follow when 
the going gets rough and tough.
  This issue and this nomination is all about integrity. Integrity as 
it applies to General Glosson and integrity as it relates to our 
responsibilities in the U.S. Senate. There is a saying about 
leadership, that a leader is only as good as the people he or she 
serves.
  With that in mind, I suggest to my colleagues that we are in the 
leadership role on this nomination as Members of the U.S. Senate giving 
a stamp of approval to this nomination. If we are not in a leadership 
role in this decisionmaking process, I do not know who is or what our 
function is.
  And, of course, then, we as leaders are only as good as those we 
confirm. If we confirm someone, especially a military officer, with a 
dark cloud still lingering, then that dark cloud reflects on us as 
well.
  No doubt General Glosson deserves great credit for his outstanding 
achievements. Indeed, he has been rewarded for them over the years by a 
string of promotions. His performance during the gulf war earned him a 
second star.
  But we are here, Mr. President, debating not that second star, or any 
of the general's previous promotions, we are debating his performance 
since his outstanding work in the Persian Gulf and after he was given a 
second star.
  The findings of the IG--this cloud over the general's head --that he 
interfered with the promotion board, the findings of the IG that he 
lied under oath involves activity after his last are promotion.
  The question is does his recent record warrant this promotion? In my 
view, this confirmation comes down to one thing: it is an issue of 
integrity versus friendship. I know that he has made lots of friends 
here in the Senate. I know that he facilitated a tremendous amount of 
access for people up here while he was at the Pentagon and over at the 
Pentagon.
  But friendship should not be the number one concern of this body in 
carrying out its responsibilities in this confirmation process. If we 
are to be the leaders in the confirmation process, if we are to demand 
integrity in this process, if we are trying to change business as usual 
here in the Senate, and if we are trying to tell the voters every day 
that we are trying to do that and especially trying to tell them how we 
are going to change business as usual before the election, then we 
ourselves must put integrity at the top. Integrity is the cornerstone 
of leadership. Putting friendship above integrity is business as usual.
  I am not going to sit idly by while this happens again and again. If 
there were ever a nominee who warrants a refusal by this body it is 
this one. This nomination is not being pushed even by the Air Force. 
The Secretary of the Air Force came to my office the other day and 
spoke on behalf of the other Air Force nominees, Colonel Bolton and 
General Barry, but she did not speak on behalf of General Glosson. Why?
  You know why. Because this is an issue of integrity. Every single 
member of the U.S. Air Force, from the lowliest private to the highest 
general, is watching this vote.
  Here is a general whose integrity is in question and they see a small 
group of Senators who are friends of his securing to protect him trying 
to whisk him through the confirmation process. The heck with 
demoralizing the troops. They are saying they are putting friendship 
over integrity without any consideration of the impact this will have 
throughout the ranks.
  I have received countless letters and countless phone calls about 
this nomination from officers all around the country. They cannot 
believe the spectacle, believe me, Mr. President. What we do on this 
vote will send a powerful message to those men and women who serve our 
country.
  It will tell our troops that having friends in high places is more 
important than having unquestioned integrity.
  In Federalist Paper No. 77, Alexander Hamilton explained that to add 
advice-and-consent function was designed to maintain public 
accountability. Presidents have the sole power to nominate. 
Responsibility for poor nominees belongs solely to the White House.
  But Alexander Hamilton said that the Senate was accountable for its 
role as well, that the Senate would have to answer to the public for 
rejecting good nominees or for passing bad ones.
  Our function is to screen bad nominees or we will have to answer to 
the public. The more bad nominees we pass, the more cynical the public 
has become. And the result is not only taken out on us at the polling 
booths but our constituents' cynicism helps erode democracy detracting 
from the approximate process of representative government.
  In the simplest terms, General Glosson monkeyed with the promotion 
process.
  Now, you know there might be some things in this whole issue about 
lying or remembering or whether he was truthful or whether he was not 
that might be in dispute. It is not, as far as I am concerned, but some 
people might legitimately dispute that. But there is no dispute that he 
monkeyed with the promotion process.
  He was cited by the DOD and by the Air Force IG's--not one, two--as 
having lied about it. To confirm General Glosson with such a record 
still standing would set a terrible example. It would serve as a 
blemish on the military promotion process. It would demoralize the 
military men and women across America and it would give the U.S. Senate 
a blemish on its record.
  Now, in regard to my position, first, let me state what my position 
is on this matter. Some in the press corps has chosen to characterize 
my position as opposition to the retirement of General Glosson. This is 
not correct. From the beginning, my position has been to resolve the 
questions raised by some in light of the findings of the joint DOD Air 
Force IG investigation.
  Thus far, in my view, the findings of the joint IG report still stand 
on solid ground, and that being the case, then we cannot move ahead 
with this nomination.
  If some new information were to be brought forth to question the IG 
finding with credibility, I would say fine. It would make a big 
difference to me.
  No one has successfully done that. In seeking to resolve these 
questions, I have pursued numerous questions of my own about the 
underlying facts of this case with the Air Force and also with the 
Defense Department, also with the White House, and with the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee. I have done this over an entire year. I 
have tried to ensure that the issues outlined in the IG report and any 
doubts about them be thoroughly addressed.
  But, after all the investigating had been done, it turns out that the 
questions raised about the IG report are groundless. I will speak more 
about this in awhile. That conclusion, though, is inescapable. If all 
the documents are reviewed, you cannot come to any other conclusion. 
And yet, we are moving ahead with this nomination.
  The DOD and the Air Force IGs found that General Glosson lied under 
oath and that he improperly tampered with the promotion board. The Air 
Force JAG and the Air Force general counsel reviewed the IG's findings 
and, based on the evidence of the record, concluded that there were 
problems.
  Let me emphasize that both concurred with the report of the DOD and 
the Air Force IGs; not one position, two positions. In other words, 
these two Air Force counsels agreed, after thorough review of the case, 
that General Glosson lied under oath and that he improperly tampered 
with a promotion board. That is powerful stuff, Mr. President. That is 
indeed powerful stuff.
  What is more compelling is the fact that this is the first time 
ever--let me emphasize ever--that the DOD IGs have accused a high-
ranking official of lying under oath. This is the first time ever that 
DOD IGs have accused a high-ranking official of lying under oath.
  So what that means, Mr. President, is that the IG cannot justly be 
accused of being overly aggressive on this point. It is perhaps an 
understatement to say that the IGs have been judicious in the past of 
making such accusations.
  Again, Mr. President, it seems to me that these are powerful facts 
that cannot be denied and ought to be persuasive in and of themselves.
  Now what is it that would cause the IG's findings to be superseded? 
Because if they could be superseded, all of us in the Senate should be 
open to that.
  Well, the obvious answer is, if subsequent investigation turned up 
new facts that countervail the original investigation, then it would 
warrant a new look. But that has not been the case, Mr. President. The 
three-member panel confirmed the facts put forth by the joint IG 
report. Remember, that is the panel set up after the Armed Services 
Committee sent it back to the department for review. This three-member 
panel that met sometime during August and reported back to the Senate 
in early September, this panel confirmed these facts. These are facts 
that the IG found. In fact, in some areas, it went even further. It 
differed only in its judgment as to whether General Glosson lied under 
oath.
  This panel, that met a year later trying to determine whether General 
Glosson lied, the only difference whether the interview was anything 
other than what the IG a year before found wrong with General Glosson 
tampering with the promotion process, it differed only whether General 
Glosson lied under oath. But, at the same time, Mr. President, it did 
not say that he told the truth. And it stated that the three members--
now, these are the three generals who resigned from the promotion board 
when it is being tampered with--it stated that these three generals who 
testified against General Glosson, that these three generals all told 
the truth.
  The result: One, there is no disputing that General Glosson tampered 
with the promotion board; and, two, the three-member panel has not been 
persuasive that the charge of lying leveled by the IGs is inaccurate.
  I want to go into further depth about the IG report and the panel's 
report, on the issue of lying.
  Mr. President, our distinguished President pro tempore would like to 
have the floor. I would like to yield him the floor at this point, 
without losing my right to the floor. He said he would take about 10 
minutes. I would be very happy to yield that 10 minutes at this point.
  Is that permissible under the rules?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The President pro tempore is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I will 
not consume more than 10 minutes, at least that is my intention.

                          ____________________