[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 LT. GEN. BUSTER C. GLOSSON

                                 ______


                NOMINATION OF COL. CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR.

                                 ______


              NOMINATION OF LT. GEN. EDWARD P. BARRY, JR.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly this evening on three 
nominations, all of which are subject to extended debate, although two 
of them have not been discussed, and I am not sure how much the Senator 
from Iowa is planning on discussing the Barry nomination and the Bolton 
nomination. But I will discuss those first and then make some remarks 
on the Glosson nomination, in the hopes we can get a vote on all three 
of these individuals that have come out of committee with strong 
support.
  The nomination, Lt. Gen. Edward P. Barry, U.S. Air Force, is a 
retirement nomination, to retire in grade. For people who do not follow 
these procedures, retiring in grade means the officer would be able to 
retire with the same number of stars--in this case as a three-star 
general--that the officer earned while on active duty. If do you not 
get confirmed by the Senate in grade, you revert to a two-star position 
for retirement. So that is what we mean when we say retire in grade. It 
is not a promotion. It is a retirement at the rank earned in active 
duty. The Barry nomination came out of the Armed Services Committee 
with a 22 to 0 vote. It was unanimous, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  The second nomination I will discuss briefly is Col. Claude Bolton, 
U.S. Air Force. This is a promotion to the grade of brigadier general. 
In other words, he will stay in the service. He is not retiring.
  The third nomination is another retirement question, and that is on 
Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson. The question is whether he will be able to 
retire with three stars, which he earned on active duty, or whether he 
will revert permanently to two stars at retirement. So those are the 
questions. One promotion in active duty, and two retirements.
  First, I will discuss the nomination of Gen. Edward P. Barry, U.S. 
Air Force. As I mentioned, his nomination received unanimous support in 
the Armed Services Committee.
  In a September 30, 1994, letter to that committee, Deputy Secretary 
of Defense John Deutch outlined the highlights of Lieutenant General 
Barry's military record. I quote from that letter:

       LTG Barry has had a 33-year distinguished career serving 
     our country. His accomplishments have directly impacted our 
     national security. For example, in 1982 he received the Air 
     Force Association's National Award for Program Management as 
     Program Director for the Defense Support Program. The 
     system's detection of Iraqi-launched SCUD missiles during 
     Desert Storm provided crucial advance notice of attack, which 
     saved lives and enabled our air defense system to react. As 
     Commander of the Ballistic Missile Division, he successfully 
     fielded 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs, on schedule and under cost, 
     while sustaining Minuteman II/III operational requirements.

  Other highlights of his career include service as the Program 
Director of the NAVSTAR Global Positioning Satellite at its inception 
in 1978, Vice Commander of the Aeronautical Systems Division, and 
Commander of the Air Force Space and Missiles Systems Center.
  Lieutenant General Barry's nomination has been pending since October 
29, 1993--almost a year. The reason for the delay has been the 
committee's review of issues raised in connection with the C-17 
program.
  Mr. President, from 1990 to 1991, Lieutenant General Barry served as 
the Air Force's first program executive officer for Tactical and 
Airlift Systems. In that position, he had general oversight of a number 
of major programs, including the F-22, the F-15, the F-16, and the C-
17. These are all programs under his jurisdiction. During this period, 
as Members well know, and as the Senator from Iowa has pointed out, the 
C-17 contractor experienced a variety of cost, schedule, and 
performance problems. These problems were examined in detail in 1993 by 
the inspector general of the Department of Defense.
  So the controversy concerning Lieutenant General Barry, in spite of 
the fact that he had a number of systems, the F-22, F-16, F-15 all 
under his jurisdiction, the controversy as I understand it, relates to 
one of those, the C-17 program.
  Although the IG issued over 60 pages of findings on problems in the 
C-17 program, the only specific discussion of Lieutenant General Barry 
involved an assessment he made that the risks of the contractor meeting 
its estimate of cost at completion was moderate to high. That was his 
risk assessment on the C-17 program.
  Then the IG said they did not believe this was a strong enough 
assessment of risk. In other words, they believe moderate to high was 
not sufficient. It should have been higher than that. The Air Force 
then reviewed the inspector general report and concluded that the facts 
supported Lieutenant General Barry's assessment.
  So the total case as I understand it against Lieutenant General 
Barry, that the IG said that his risk assessment was not high enough, 
the Air Force reviewed it and said they did not agree with the IG. They 
agreed with Lieutenant General Barry. If there is any further case 
against him, perhaps somebody could inform us.
  Secretary Aspin reviewed the IG report and the Air Force's response 
on the range of individuals responsible for the C-17 program. He 
removed the program manager from his duties, and the program manager 
then retired. So when we talk about accountability, the program manager 
was forced off the job and forced to retire.
  Secretary Aspin also stated that in order to restore confidence in 
the acquisition system, he would direct that a number of individuals no 
longer perform acquisition management functions, including Lieutenant 
General Barry. Secretary Aspin, however, made no specific findings with 
respect to Lieutenant General Barry.
  Lieutenant General Barry then submitted a request to retire. The 
request was approved by the Department of Defense with a recommendation 
that he retire in grade, meaning that he could keep the number of stars 
he had earned under active duty.
  The President approved this DoD recommendation and submitted the 
retirement nomination. Our committee took note of the Secretary's 
administrative action concerning Lieutenant General Barry's acquisition 
duties and asked Secretary Aspin for his views. Secretary Aspin 
affirmed his strong support for Lieutenant General Barry to retire in 
grade, which is what the committee has recommended to the Senate.
  This nomination remained pending in the committee while the 
Department of Defense addressed a variety of questions regarding the 
management of the C-17 programs. None of these subsequent reviews found 
any culpability on the part of Lieutenant General Barry.
  I note my friend and colleague from Iowa mentioned he was prepared to 
vote on the nomination last year. But the committee did not complete 
its review until after the C-17 inquiries were completed with respect 
to this nomination. If we had brought this nomination to the floor when 
the Senator from Iowa mentioned--I do not remember what he said, April 
or when he said he was ready to debate it--then we would not have had 
the benefit of these reviews and we would not have been able to tell 
our colleagues the facts relating to the findings in regard to 
Lieutenant General Barry and his part on the C-17 program.
  The nomination remained pending in the committee while the Department 
of Defense went through the numerous management questions relating to 
the management of the C-17 program. None of these subsequent reviews 
found any culpability on the part of Lieutenant General Barry.
  On September 30, 1994, Deputy Secretary Deutch advised the committee 
that he had personally reviewed Lieutenant General Barry's role in the 
C-17 program. This is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He concluded 
that ``if Lieutenant General Barry had not elected to retire, I would 
have returned him to acquisition duties.'' Secretary Deutch then added 
that his ``performance in his current position of the Commander of the 
Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles has further 
demonstrated his professionalism and his dedication to duty.''
  In effect, Mr. President--and this is no exaggeration--if we reject 
this nomination, Secretary Deutch--and this is the nomination for 
retirement in grade, not a promotion, this man is retiring from active 
duty if we approve it--but, if we reject it, Secretary Deutch says he 
wants him to serve out his remaining 3 years in acquisition, because he 
has full confidence in him. So if this nomination is rejected on the 
belief that he made a mistake in acquisition--to the IG rejected by the 
Air Force, made one mistake in all his career, if he did it all--if we 
reject it, it would result in his going into the acquisition system for 
3 more years.

  Now, I do not know whether that is what the Senator from Iowa wants, 
because he is opposed to this nomination I understand. But it would be 
the ultimate paradox if we rejected the nomination on the basis that he 
made a mistake in procurement and then he stays in procurement for 3 
more years. It would not bother me because I think he has had an 
outstanding career, but for those who voted to reject him it would be 
the ultimate paradox. We have no authority to remove him from the 
military service. That is not in the power of the Senate. We have the 
authority to not approve his nomination to retire in grade.
  That is our question. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to 
keep him on. I do not believe my colleagues who perhaps have opposition 
to this nomination would find that result to their liking if they 
really do believe he has made a serious mistake. I do not. I think with 
the outstanding record he has had in all these programs, that he has 
managed to have only one such allegation by the IG in all of this 
time--and, remember, he said the risk was moderate to high; that was 
the range. It turned out it was high. If he had not had the word 
moderate in there, perhaps there would have been no finding by the IG.
  Mr. President, it is important to remember that the C-17 program was 
a troubled program long before Lieutenant General Barry became the 
program executive officer, and the decisions regarding cost, schedule 
and performance were not his. They were made at the highest levels of 
the Air Force.
  It is certainly possible, with hindsight, as the IG did, to suggest 
that Lieutenant General Barry could have done more to address the 
problems in the C-17 program. I do not believe however, it is wise or 
desirable to insist that military officers achieve a standard of 
perfection in order to retire in grade. How many of us would like to be 
held to a standard of perfection in terms of the United States? How 
many of us have never made a single error in our careers?
  There has been no showing that he acted or failed to act in any 
manner that would cast doubt upon his professionalism or integrity. I 
repeat that. There has been no showing that he failed to act in any 
manner or acted in any manner that would cast doubt upon his 
professionalism or integrity.
  Lieutenant General Barry served the Nation with distinction and has 
had many successful tours of duty. He has contributed to the strength 
of our Armed Forces and to our national security through the 
development of sound and successful acquisition programs. In view of 
his overall career and in view of the high degree of confidence that 
the current leadership of Department of Defense has expressed in his 
abilities, I strongly endorse his nomination to be retired in grade.
  Mr. President, I assume we will vote on this nomination, either on 
the nomination itself, I hope, or perhaps on the cloture motion, I 
hope, in the next several hours or perhaps even the next several days. 
That is up to the people who oppose the nomination.
  Mr. President, the second nomination I will discuss this evening is 
the nomination of Col. Claude Bolton in the U.S. Air Force, for 
promotion to the grade of brigadier general. This is a different 
nomination?
  This is one to stay in the military and move up a notch to brigadier 
general from colonel.
  Colonel Bolton is a Vietnam combat veteran where he flew over 200 
combat missions, including 40 missions over North Vietnam. Following 
his service in Vietnam, he served as a test pilot for the F-4, F-11, 
and F-15 aircraft. More recently, he was the first program manager for 
the Advanced Tactical Fighter Program, which evolved into what we now 
call the F-22. He then served as the program manager for the Advanced 
Cruise Missile Program.
  According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Deutch, Colonel Bolton 
Deutch ``turned around a troubled program and produced technically 
sound missiles regarding meeting the requirements of the Air Force. 
Since May 1993, he has served as commandant of the Defense System 
Management College. Deputy Secretary Deutch has advised the committee 
that he has ``had the opportunity to personally observe Colonel 
Bolton's performance over the last 18 months in his capacity as the 
commander of the Defense System Management College. His service in that 
capacity, as in earlier assignments,'' according to Secretary Deutch, 
``has been outstanding.''
  Colonel Bolton was selected for promotion by a duly authorized 
selection board. His nomination for promotion was submitted to the 
Senate. The nomination has been pending in the committee since January 
7, 1993. The committee withheld action on this nomination due to the 
reviews by the Air Force and the Department of Defense concerning the 
Advanced Cruise Missile Program, including the period during which he 
was program manager. That is the reason this nomination has not come 
before us. The Senator from Iowa said he was prepared to vote on it 
earlier. Perhaps he was, but it would have been without full 
information because the committee was waiting for the reviews 
concerning the Advanced Cruise Missile Program, the program he was 
associated with. On September 30, 1994, a week ago, Deputy Secretary 
Deutch described the results of those reviews.
  And I quote Secretary Deutch again:

       I have personally reviewed the issues that have been raised 
     about his management of the ACM (advanced cruise missile) 
     program as a result of a DOD Inspector General Report on Air 
     Force missile procurement. The report, which did not allege 
     any misconduct or other deficiency by Colonel Bolton, 
     recommended that the Air Force review and report on 
     violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Air Force 
     conducted the review, and determined that the actions taken 
     to fund the program did not violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. 
     The Department of Defense General Counsel and DOD Comptroller 
     have both concurred in this determination.

  Secretary Deutch added:

       It is important to note that the funding decisions at issue 
     were not made by Colonel Bolton; rather, they were made by 
     the Secretary of the Air Force, with the advice and 
     concurrence of the senior leadership of the service. Colonel 
     Bolton reasonably and properly relied on their decisions and 
     direction in his implementation of the program.

  Mr. President, in summary, Colonel Bolton is a combat veteran, an 
acquisition specialist whose record has been characterized by the 
leaders of the Department of Defense as ``outstanding.''
  With respect to the Advance Cruise Missile Program, the Deputy 
Secretary has noted that there is ``no basis . . . for concluding that 
there was any significant deficiency in Colonel Bolton's management of 
the program. On the contrary, . . . he acted with professionalism and 
integrity to identify problems and implement the decisions made by 
authorized superior officials.''
  Secretary Deutch concluded:

       Colonel Bolton has served his Nation with skill and 
     dignity. I am confident that he has much more to offer our 
     Nation.

  Mr. President, in summary, what happened was this program had a 
funding problem. Colonel Bolton properly brought it to the attention of 
his superiors, the Secretary of the Air Force and others. They came up 
with a funding plan and told him what to do. This was his superiors. He 
reports a problem. He gets an order from the top that says, ``This is 
what you are supposed to do.'' Then the IG criticized the funding of 
the program and said that there was a violation of the Anti-Deficiency 
Act, which is serious.
  But Colonel Bolton did not make that decision. The Secretary of the 
Air Force did. The Air Force has now said there was no violation; and 
the DOD General Counsel said there was no violation--so that dispute 
has pretty much been laid to rest. But whether it has or not, Colonel 
Bolton had nothing to do with it.
  I do not know what you can ask of a man any more than he report a 
problem to his superiors. And when they basically review it and tell 
him what to do, he does it. That is what he did.
  He did not do anything wrong. He has not been accused of doing 
anything wrong by anyone. I repeat that. He has not been accused of 
doing anything wrong by anyone--by the IG, by the Air Force, by DOD, by 
the committee, by anyone.
  So I certainly urge that this nomination for promotion to brigadier 
general be approved.
  Mr. President, the third nomination is the one that my friend and 
colleague from Iowa has talked about at length on the floor. I know 
that the people who have heard this now, I think, pretty much 
understand his view of the nomination, and that is a view that all my 
colleagues should consider. I do not agree with it, but this is a 
closer case and it deserves consideration of those here on the floor of 
the Senate, as well as those who will be voting.
  Mr. President, there are a couple of things that the Senator from 
Iowa said over and over again. I will address some of the other points 
he made in more detail, but he mentioned two or three of what I used to 
call back in my law practice days ``straw man" arguments that he 
proceeded to knock down very hard. But the difficulty with citing those 
arguments, from the committee point of view, is we did not rely on 
them.
  One was so the so-called conspiracy theory. And the Senator made a 
strong case that there was no conspiracy among the officers who were 
accusing General Glosson of misconduct. We agree with that. That is not 
part of our committee report. We did not in any way say there was a 
conspiracy.
  The other one that he mentioned and then knocked down, was that the 
IG was biased. As the Senator knows in reading the report, I am sure, 
that we did not say in the report that the IG was biased.
  So the main arguments he used on those two points, the committee did 
not in any way rely on those. We did not even mention those in our 
discussion of the merits of the nomination, although those were 
questions that came up in the overall investigation. But that was not 
the basis of the majority's opinion on this.
  This was a vote that passed in the committee by 14 to 7. People on 
both sides of the aisle voted yes and people on both sides of the aisle 
voted no.
  I want to emphasize, before I begin my remarks--and I will make short 
remarks tonight on this subject and then I will have perhaps more 
remarks tomorrow, depending on when we vote.
  I want to emphasize to my colleagues again that this is not an active 
duty promotion. This is a retirement nomination.
  The question here is not whether General Glosson stays in the Air 
Force. He is already out of the Air Force. The question is whether 
General Glosson retires with three stars, which were earned while he 
was on active duty, or whether he permanently retires with two stars 
because we disapprove his nomination for retirement in grade.
  He is going to retire as a general. He is going to retire either as a 
two-star general--if we reject his nomination--or as a three-star 
general. He is not going to be court-martialed. He is not going to face 
any kind of criminal charges. There has been no charge like that.
  The question we have before us is whether General Glosson is going to 
retire as a three-star or a two-star general.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one added 
clarification?
  Mr. NUNN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. There is also a serious financial implication, which is 
not only shared by the service person but by his family, also.
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Virginia is correct. There is 
approximately a $6,700 a year difference. So we are deciding, in terms 
of money, whether General Glosson gets $6,700 less, he and his family, 
as the Senator from Virginia said.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge, Mr. President, the emphasis on the family, 
because they, in most instances, have worked throughout this 30-plus 
year career, moved hundreds of odd times, and borne the burdens of 
service life.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend from Virginia. And I certainly concur in 
that.
  Mr. President, Lt. Gen. Glosson has served our Nation in uniform for 
over 29 years. The highlights of his career--and it has been an 
outstanding career--include: Combat in Vietnam as an F-4 pilot, for 
which he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for 139 missions--
139 missions in Vietnam.
  Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force, Middle East, United States 
Central Command, during the Persian Gulf conflict. General Glosson was 
responsible for planning and implementation of the Allied air campaign 
during Operation Desert Storm.
  He was the individual in charge of Operation Desert Storm, the entire 
air campaign. He was responsible for planning and implementation right 
under General Horner. That team probably did as fine a job as any team 
has ever done in the history of warfare in terms of a complicated, 
complex operation. And we saw the results of an awful lot of it on our 
television screens. He served as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force for Plans and Operations. That is the job he had when he left the 
Persian Gulf war.

  As Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch stated in support of the 
nomination, Lieutenant General Glosson's record of service in Vietnam 
and Desert Storm is impressive. This is a quote: His ``record of 
service in Vietnam and Desert Storm is impressive.''
  Secretary Deutch added:
       ``His demanding style and frankness contributed to 
     protecting and saving the lives of American pilots during the 
     Gulf War. This was part of a 29-year military career that has 
     been distinguished * * * and justifies a retirement with a 
     rank of lieutenant general.''

  Mr. President, I could make a 4-hour speech about General Glosson's 
military record. I could go through everything that was happening in 
Desert Storm. I could go through his whole career in Vietnam. But I 
think it should just be said for the record that this has been an 
outstanding military officer.
  That does not decide the question tonight. That does not decide the 
question we must address. But it is certainly a relevant fact.
  When you look at a mistake that an individual made, and he did make a 
mistake. I think it was a serious mistake. But when you look at that 
mistake, I think you also have to weigh that against a 29-year career. 
I hope my colleagues will do that.
  There are people who will come to one or the other conclusion, but to 
me you have to consider the entire spectrum when you are considering 
retirement.
  This is not a question of whether he is going to stay in the 
military. He has already paid a price. This individual is one of the 
few people in the Air Force who would probably have been in the final 
two or three--looking at the new Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He 
was going to be a four-star general. Everybody in the Air Force knew 
that.
  So the question in people's minds is going to be did he do something 
wrong? In my opinion, he did not do anything that violated the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice in terms of any court-martial offense. The 
Senator from Iowa made some comments regarding that. But he did make a 
mistake, and I will get into that in a moment. He made a mistake which 
I think was a serious mistake.
  The question will then be has he paid a price for that? The answer is 
he has paid an enormous price. He was basically retired from the 
military 6 years earlier than his career would otherwise have 
terminated. He was basically not given the opportunity to be a four-
star general. He was basically removed from his outstanding potential 
career.
  So has he paid a price? If you talk to General Glosson or his family, 
anybody who knows him, you would say he has paid a very high price for 
the mistake he made.
  The Committee on Armed Services has given considerable attention to 
this nomination, as outlined in detail in the committee's report on 
this nomination--Executive Report 103-34. We go into great detail in 
that report. I am not going to lay it all out tonight. But anyone who 
wants to read every angle of this can read that report or even skim 
that report and get a full picture.
  The information provided by the Department of Defense on this 
nomination, when it came over to us, raised more questions than it 
answered, so we directed the Department of  Defense to establish an 
independent panel to review the issues concerning Lieutenant General 
Glosson's nomination.

  Mr. President, the inspector general found that General Glosson had 
lied. That was said in the inspector general's report. When the 
Department of Defense sent the nomination over to us, they did not even 
reasonably comment on that. They just said we do not have to decide 
that.
  Well, in effect, the committee was put in an impossible position.
  If I felt he lied, I would not be out here tonight on this 
nomination. I would have said no on that nomination. I would have said 
no without any doubt. But that was not what the Department of Defense 
found. The IG found that: The Department of Defense did not take a 
position on that, which we found to be unacceptable. So we sent it back 
to the Department of Defense.
  The independent panel then was formed by the Department of Defense 
and that panel, composed of Mr. Jeff Smith, who used to be the chief 
counsel of our committee, the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Will Taft, 
who was the Deputy Secretary and general counsel of the Department of 
Defense. Also he was our NATO head in the Bush administration. He was 
the second member of the panel, and the third member was Mr. Alan 
Chase, who was the minority staff director on the House side.
  That panel was appointed. They confirmed the conclusion of an earlier 
joint DOD and Air Force inspector general investigation that Lieutenant 
General Glosson knew, at the time that he discussed the qualifications 
of a particular candidate with the three officers, that one or more of 
these officers had been designated to serve on the promotion board.
  That is what this is all about--commenting to people in derogatory 
terms about an officer when General Glosson either knew or should have 
known that one or more of those officers could be or was likely to be 
on the promotion board, selecting or determining the future of that 
individual officer that he talked about.
  The panel, this independent panel, then considered the issue of 
whether Lieutenant General Glosson lied about his communications with 
the three officers in his testimony during the joint IG investigation. 
The panel reviewed the evidence, interviewed the witnesses, assessed 
their credibility. That panel concluded that Lieutenant General 
Glosson's statements were ``not accurate'' but they also stated:

       We have concluded that LTG Glosson thinks his version is 
     accurate and that it represents fairly what at this point he 
     recalls. In short, we believe he is not deliberately lying 
     but is simply mistaken.

  Everyone who has practiced law knows if you are going to prove that 
someone committed perjury in any kind of court, you not only have to 
show the statement is false, you also have to show they knew it was 
false. Those are the two elements. So in this case the panel said they 
did not believe Lieutenant General Glosson knew that he was making a 
false statement. That is the heart of what they decided.
  Before giving my evaluation of this nomination, I want to emphasize 
that the committee spent a lot of time on this nomination because of 
the high priority we give to matters involving the integrity of the 
promotion system.
  The committee regards improper communications with selection board 
members to be a very serious matter. As we  noted in a report in 1992, 
the ``fair and impartial conduct of the selection process is a matter 
of great concern to the Committee. The integrity of the selection 
process is essential to the integrity of the officer corps. Adherence 
to the established laws and regulations is necessary to ensure the best 
officers are selected for promotion and that the officer corps has 
confidence in the integrity of the selection process.''

  The factfinding panel found that Lieutenant General Glosson 
``improperly attempted to influence'' officers who had been designated 
to serve on a selection board. This finding was accepted by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Deutch.
  Mr. President, the committee's report on this nomination addresses 
this matter by noting that, ``it was wrong for LTG Glosson to attempt 
to influence members of the board. The committee regards failure to 
comply with the restrictions on communications with selection boards as 
a serious matter in view of the committee's strong commitment to the 
integrity of the selection board process.''
  The committee also noted, however, that it is important to place 
these actions in their appropriate legal context. The regulations 
governing such communications are administrative in nature. Actions 
inconsistent with such regulations are subject to administrative 
action. They are not subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice.
  The Senator from Iowa has mentioned that UCMJ several times I think 
in his presentation. But these actions are not subject to that Uniform 
Code of Military Justice. They are subject to administrative action.
  The committee further noted that, as a result of the administrative 
action taken against Lieutenant General Glosson, his military career 
has been prematurely terminated, 6 years before his projected 
retirement date. As Secretary Widnall has stated:

       General Glosson has earned the privilege of retiring in the 
     grade of lieutenant general. The events of last fall do not 
     erase his years of extraordinary contribution, nor, in my 
     view, do they call for a different conclusion.

  So the Secretary of the Air Force basically endorses this and sent 
this nomination up. The Secretary of Defense endorses it. The President 
endorses it.
  The committee agreed in the final analysis after a great deal of 
discussion and months and months of deliberation on a very tough 
question. We agreed with the recommendations of the administration, 
based it upon the following factors:
  First, this is a retirement nomination, and does not involve 
promotion or reassignment to a position of importance and 
responsibility. In that context, it is particularly important to take 
into account Lieutenant General Glosson's 29 years of distinguished 
service to the Nation, including his service as architect of the 
Persian Gulf air war during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm 
as well as his outstanding combat service in Vietnam.
  Second, improper communications to a member of the selection board, 
while serious, involve an administrative matter, not a court-martial 
offense.
  Third, Lieutenant General Glosson has suffered serious consequences 
as a result of the improper communications. His brilliant career, 
destined for four stars and perhaps even leadership of the Air Force, 
has been terminated. The improper communications are now a matter of 
public record. General Glosson must live with the consequences of the 
panel report and the decision by the Deputy Secretary of Defense to 
accept the panel's finding.
  Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Iowa say several times that 
there needs to be a warning sent to the Air Force officers out there 
about this conduct being a mistake and improper. I agree with that. I 
agree with that. I think the Senator is entirely correct on that. This 
was not a correct action. It was a mistake. It basically could have 
tainted the process. Three Air Force officers came forward and said we 
do not think this is right, and they basically reported the 
conversations they had with Lieutenant General Glosson.
  But where I perhaps would disagree with my friend from Iowa is I 
believe the warning has already gone out. When an Air Force officer who 
is slated for four stars, who has had one of the most outstanding 
combat records in the Air Force, certainly since World War II and 
including a lot of that war, when that happens and he and his career is 
cut off and he is to retire 6 years early, and when he has no 
opportunity for further promotion, when he gives up any opportunity to 
ever be in a four-star position, that is punishment in the eyes of 
anybody in the military.
  The question for this body is: Is that punishment enough? The Senator 
from Iowa does not believe it is. I believe it is. I believe that is 
sufficient punishment. I understand how others could have a different 
view.
  Mr. President, there is one final remark I want to make. I have known 
Lieutenant General Glosson personally for a number of years. Everyone 
should know that. I have known him, I have admired him, I have worked 
with him. You cannot divorce that from your view when you bring forth a 
nomination on the floor of the Senate. I do not in any way hide that 
knowledge of him. I know him, and the reason I do not believe he lied 
and the reason I agree with the panel and not the IG is because I have 
seen him time after time come forward and give information that is 
adverse to his own position in an honest and a fair and an objective 
way.
  Time after time, we have worked with General Glosson and asked him 
for information about controversial programs. He has always been 
honest--honest and painfully so--even when he knows that the 
information being provided, even his own personal opinion, is adverse 
to a particular program that he has been in favor of.
  So I know him personally. Others know him personally. Other Senators 
do not know him personally. They can make their own judgment, but I do 
not believe he lied intentionally. I do not believe he provided false 
information intentionally. I do know General Glosson is a very frank 
and candid guy. That is one of the characteristics of people who are 
usually warriors. He is a warrior. He is frank. He is candid.
  When he says something about someone, he means it. And I can imagine 
him making derogatory comments about another officer. I want everyone 
to understand, it is no offense, administrative or otherwise, to make 
derogatory comments about another officer, any more than it is to make 
derogatory comments in the Senate--private comments--about a Senator. 
But what is wrong in this case is he was making comments to those 
people he either knew or should have known, might have known, or 
probably knew were likely to be on the promotion board. He may not have 
known specifically they were going to be on the promotion board, but he 
should have known when he was talking to that many generals at that 
rank.
  Finally, if General Glosson is not confirmed or retired in grade as a 
three-star general, his retired pay will be reduced, as the Senator 
from Virginia said, by approximately $6,700 a year. While the improper 
communications, in my view, warrant serious administrative action--and 
action has been taken in this case--it was the committee's judgment 
that a single incident of noncriminal conduct in an otherwise 
distinguished career did not warrant an annual reduction of $6,700 of 
retired pay and a reversion back to two stars.
  If anybody ever earned three stars in the United States Air Force 
since World War II, General Glosson earned those three stars. Our 
decision tonight will be whether to remove one of them from what would 
otherwise be justified.
  The committee did not believe that that single misstep, even though 
significant and even though a serious mistake, in light of the overall 
total career, warranted compounding the consequences that General 
Glosson has already suffered and his family has already suffered by 
denying him one of the three stars he earned while on active duty.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember that this is a 
retirement nomination involving an individual who has already suffered 
serious consequences. In view of his long and distinguished service to 
the Nation, I believe this nomination should be confirmed.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have not yielded yet. I will yield in just 
a moment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters on Colonel 
Bolton and Lieutenant General Barry from Secretary Deutch be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support for 
     the nomination of Colonel Claude M. Bolton for promotion to 
     the grade of Brigadier General. I have had the opportunity to 
     personally observe Colonel Bolton's performance over the last 
     18 months in his capacity as the Commander of the Defense 
     Systems Management College. His service in that capacity, as 
     in his earlier assignments, has been outstanding.
       Colonel Bolton is a combat veteran of Vietnam, where he 
     flew 232 combat missions over Southeast Asia in the F-4 with 
     40 of these missions over North Vietnam. He received two 
     Distinguished Flying Crosses and 18 Air Medals. He then flew 
     the F-4, F-111, and F-16 as a test pilot. He was the first 
     program manager for the Advanced Tactical Fighter 
     Technologies Program, which evolved into the F-22 System 
     Program Office. As program manager for the Advanced Cruise 
     Missile (ACM) program, he turned around a troubled program 
     and produced technically sound missiles meeting the 
     requirements of the Air Force. In March 1993, he assumed his 
     current position as Commandant.
       I have personally reviewed the issues that have been raised 
     about his management of the ACM program as a result of a DoD 
     Inspector General report on Air Force missile procurement. 
     The report, which did not allege any misconduct or other 
     deficiency by Colonel Bolton, recommended that the Air Force 
     review and report on violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. 
     The Air Force conducted the review, and determined that the 
     actions taken to fund the program did not violate the Anti-
     Deficiency Act. The Department of Defense General Counsel and 
     the DoD Comptroller both have concurred in this 
     determination. It is important to note that funding decisions 
     at issue were not made by Colonel Bolton; rather, they were 
     made by the Secretary of the Air Force, with the advice and 
     concurrence of the senior leadership of the service. Colonel 
     Bolton reasonably and properly relied on their decisions and 
     direction in his implementation of the program.
       It is always possible, with hindsight, to suggest ways in 
     which an acquisition official might have taken a different 
     approach in dealing with funding and management challenges. 
     There is no basis, however, for concluding that there was any 
     significant deficiency in Colonel Bolton's management of the 
     program. On the contrary, it is my view that he acted with 
     professionalism and integrity to identify problems and 
     implement the decisions made by authorized superior 
     officials.
       Colonel Bolton has served his nation with skill and 
     dignity. I am confident that he has much more to offer our 
     nation, and urge the Senate to promptly confirm his 
     nomination for promotion to Brigadier General. A similar 
     letter is being provided to Senator Thurmond.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------.
                                  ____



                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support for 
     the nomination of Lieutenant General (LTG) Edward P. Barry, 
     Jr., to retire in his current grade.
       LTG Barry has had a 33-year distinguished career serving 
     our country. His accomplishments have directly impacted our 
     national security. For example, in 1982 he received the Air 
     Force Association's National Award for Program Management as 
     Program Director for the Defense Support Program. The 
     system's detection of Iraqi-launched SCUD missiles during 
     Desert Storm provided crucial advance notice of attack, which 
     saved lives and enabled our air defense systems to react. As 
     Commander of the Ballistic Missile Division, he successfully 
     fielded 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs, on schedule and under cost, 
     while sustaining Minuteman II/III operational requirements.
       I have personally reviewed the issues that have been raised 
     with respect to his role in the C-17 program. As a Program 
     Executive Officer with a staff of seven people, he had 
     supervision over six major acquisition programs, including 
     the F-22, F-15, and F-16 programs. In a January 1993 report 
     on the C-17 program, the DoD Inspector General alleged that 
     the Air Force had failed to acknowledge or report cost and 
     schedule difficulties and take decisive corrective action. 
     Although the report contained detailed information concerning 
     the role of the program manager and a number of other 
     officials, the only information in the report concerning LTG 
     Barry involves his assessment that the risk of the contractor 
     meeting its estimate at completion was ``moderate to high.''
       After reviewing the IG Report and the Air Force's comments 
     on the Report, Secretary Aspin determined that it was 
     important to take action that would restore confidence in the 
     acquisition process. He directed that the former C-17 program 
     manager be removed from his then-current duties. In addition, 
     he directed that LTG Barry and two other officials no longer 
     perform acquisition duties.
       After Secretary Aspin took his action, LTG Barry asked to 
     retire. Secretary Aspin reviewed the entire matter and 
     recommended that he be retired in grade. The nomination was 
     forwarded to the President, who submitted it to the Senate. 
     Subsequently, at the request of the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee, Secretary Aspin again reviewed the entire matter 
     and reaffirmed his support for LTG Barry's nomination to 
     retire in grade. He specifically noted at that time that 
     there was no evidence of criminal conduct, and that LTG Barry 
     had not engaged in any actions that were self-serving or 
     malicious.
       I have also reviewed these matters. I would like to make it 
     clear that if LTG Barry had not elected to retire, I would 
     have returned him to acquisition duties. His performance in 
     his current position as the Commander of the Space and 
     Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles has further 
     demonstrated his professionalism and dedication to duty.
       He has chosen to retire, and I respect that decision. In 
     light of his 33-year distinguished career, I strongly endorse 
     his nomination to retire in grade. A similar letter is being 
     provided to Senator Thurmond.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. Thurmond. Mr. President, on February 22, 1994, the Senate Armed 
Service Committee received Gen. Buster Glosson's nomination to retire 
in the grade of lieutenant general. The committee was also notified 
that an inspector general report had been prepared on General Glosson 
concerning a promotion board.
  I have a great deal of respect for the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, Merrill McPeak, so I requested his opinion of General Glosson. 
General McPeak assured me that Lieutenant General Glosson was a true 
war hero in Vietnam, the primary planner of the Air Force bombing 
campaign in Desert Storm, and a trusted officer well deserving of 
retirement in the rank of lieutenant general.
  I have watched the Glosson nomination with keen interest. Over the 
past several months; first, there has been an inspector general report 
furnished the committee that is 4 inches thick; second a number of 
executive session hearings have been conducted by the Armed Services 
Committee; and third, a hearing was held at which the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force testified on General Glosson's behalf. After all is said 
and done, it comes back to what General McPeak and I discussed 7 months 
ago. This is an outstanding officer who is deserving of retirement in 
the grade of lieutenant general. Let me just mention a few facts that 
all Senators should know before they vote.
  President Clinton recommended that General Glosson be retired as a 
lieutenant general.
  General Glosson is from North Carolina and is strongly endorsed by 
both Senators Helms and Faircloth.
  Secretary Aspin read all the material on General Glosson and 
recommended that he be allowed to retire as a lieutenant general.
  Secretary Perry read all the material on General Glosson and he 
recommended that General Glosson retire as a lieutenant general.
  Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall and Gen. Merrill McPeak 
both read the same material and made the same recommendations.
  Three special consultants were asked to reexamine the entire body of 
information concerning General Glosson and concluded that there was a 
misunderstanding between four honorable general officers and that 
General Glosson had done no wrong in his communications with the 
Department of Defense inspector general.
  Another set of facts are worth noting concern General Glosson's 
career. He has 29 years of honorable service in the U.S. Air Force. 
During that time he saw extensive combat service in Vietnam as an F-4 
pilot and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for 139 missions. 
In his capacity as Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force Middle 
East, he was responsible for the planning and implementation of the 
allied air campaign during Operation Desert Storm. He has also served 
as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Plans and Operations. 
It has been said about him that his demanding style and frankness 
unquestionably contributed to protecting and saving the lives of 
American Pilots during the gulf war. His efforts during Desert Storm 
were described as ``the most successful air campaign in the history of 
air power, a campaign brilliantly planned and flawlessly executed.'' I 
would remind each of you that it was General Glosson's work that we 
viewed on the evening news as bombs were dropped down the ventilation 
shafts of Sadaam Hussein's Air Force Headquarters.
  General Glosson worked hard, risked his life for his country and 
delivered exceptional service when his country needed him most. To tell 
him now that he cannot retire in the grade he so richly deserves not 
only does not make sense, it sends the wrong signal. This is a country 
that rewards its citizens for hard work and results. It should not be a 
country where one can lose a 29 year career over a misunderstanding. I 
urge my fellow Senators to confirm this outstanding officer to retire 
in the grade he earned, the grade of lieutenant general.
  Mr. President, I think it is worth noting that two additional 
generals are being held from consideration. Gen. Edward Barry Jr. and 
Col. Claude Boulton are two other nominees who have been before the 
Senate since early 1993. This is unconscionable. They are both good 
officers with outstanding records. The Armed Services Committee has 
reviewed all the information and materials relevant to these two 
nominations and has recommended both for confirmation. Holding them 
longer is not fair to them, the Air Force, or their families. The 
Senate should consider and approve both of these generals before it 
adjourns.
  Now, Mr. President, Senator Nunn has discussed the allegations made 
against General Barry and Colonel Bolton. I think he has described the 
committee's actions and findings very accurately. I ask my colleagues 
also to review the letters from Secretary Deutch, which I understand 
are on your desk. Secretary Deutch has concisely described the 
circumstances under which these two outstanding officers came to be the 
subject of the delays to their confirmation. It is clear to me that the 
allegations we have heard here this evening are without merit. I urge 
my colleagues to support the retirement of General Barry and the 
promotion of Colonel Bolton.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a ``Dear Colleague" 
letter sent by Senator Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
and myself as ranking minority member, follow at this point in the 
Record. This is a ``Dear Colleague" that we sent out about General 
Glosson to explain the situation.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: The Committee on Armed Services has 
     favorably reported the nomination of Lieutenant General 
     Buster C. Glosson, U.S. Air Force, to retire in grade. LTG 
     Glosson's distinguished 29-year career includes:
       His service as an F-4 pilot in Vietnam for which he was 
     awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for 139 combat 
     missions.
       Primary responsibility for planning and implementing the 
     air campaign in Operation Desert Storm.
       Service as the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans 
     and Operations.
       President Clinton, Secretary of Defense Aspin, Secretary of 
     Defense Perry, Secretary of Air Force Widnall, and Air Force 
     Chief of Staff McPeak, all recommend that LTG Glosson retire 
     in the rank of Lieutenant General. As Deputy Secretary of 
     Defense Deutch observed in testimony before the Armed 
     Services Committee, LTG Glosson's ``record of service in 
     Vietnam and Desert Storm is impressive. His demanding style 
     and frankness contributed to protecting and saving the lives 
     of American pilots during the Gulf War. This was part of a 
     brilliant 29-year military that has been distinguished . . . 
     and justifies retirement with the rank of lieutenant 
     general.''
       The Armed Services Committee has spend many hours 
     considering this nomination and has recommended to the Senate 
     that he be retired in grade. The Committee has issued a 
     detailed report on this nomination (Exec. Rept. 103-34).
       We urge our colleagues to confirm the nomination of this 
     outstanding officer to retire in grade.
           Sincerely,
     Sam Nunn,
       Chairman.
     Strom Thurmond,
       Ranking Minority Member.

  Mr. THURMOND. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall not take a great deal of time. I 
wish to say that I join with the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Senator Nunn, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Thurmond, in urging the Senate to accept the recommendations of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee.
  It has been my privilege to serve on this committee for nearly 16 
years. I assure my colleagues that we perform our work with a great 
deal of care and in a meticulous manner.
  On the two particular nominations of Barry and Bolton, there was a 
unanimous vote by the Armed Services Committee. We relied on 
documentation and letters given by the Secretary and the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense. These are individuals that the Senate can confirm 
for these responsible posts.
  Our committee worked very closely with the senior management in the 
Department of Defense. Likewise, in the case of General Glosson, I have 
not seen a case in my years that had been done with a greater 
thoroughness than this.
  What we are asking, the chairman and the ranking member, and those of 
us on the committee, is that this Senate repose in us its confidence 
that we do these things in a fair and equitable manner, in the best 
interests of our country and the Department of Defense.
  Each member has a perfect right to challenge--and, indeed, one of our 
colleagues has challenged--our judgment, and I respect my good friend. 
But I assure Members of the Senate that we have looked at these very 
carefully, and you can repose in the committee, particularly its 
chairman and ranking member, the judgment that we have made is the 
correct one. We have to be very careful as we deal with these issues on 
retirement because it affects the morale of the entire officer corps, 
not just the general officers but many of the juniors who are now 
making those career decisions as to whether to remain and dedicate the 
remainder of their lives and, indeed, the lives of their families, to 
the service of our country.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________