[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

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, seven members of the Armed Services 
Committee voted against the confirmation of General Glosson to retire 
as a three-star. I was one of the seven that voted against that 
nomination. I will vote against it if it comes to the floor because I 
believe that to vote for General Glosson to retire as a three-star 
would reward a high-ranking military officer who recently violated a 
very important principle of military ethical conduct.
  Approval of that nomination, I believe, will send the wrong message 
about the seriousness of that misconduct. On the central question of 
whether Lieutenant General Glosson improperly attempted to interfere 
with the promotion process, there is agreement among the Department of 
Defense and the Air Force inspectors general and the special panel of 
factfinders appointed by the Secretary of Defense. They agreed that 
General Glosson attempted to interfere with that board. That fact 
alone, I believe, is so serious that it is sufficient to deny him 
Senate confirmation of retirement as a three-star general.
  The special panel of factfinders appointed by the Secretary of 
Defense, at the suggestion of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
agreed and emphasized this finding in its report. I want to read from 
the factfinders' unanimous report:

       We must conclude that LTG Glosson was properly attempting 
     to influence the promotion.

  And in another part of their report:

       The board selected by the Department of Defense in a 
     finding accepted by the Department of Defense--

  And I believe accepted by even the majority of the Armed Services 
Committee.

       said that we believe that LTG Glosson was attempting to 
     influence the promotion.

  Those are chilling words. It was his sworn duty not to try to 
influence a promotion board. It is serious business when you attempt to 
influence a promotion board in the military. I repeat this because this 
is the heart of the matter. Did he lie or did he not lie? And I will 
get to that in a moment.
  But the heart of the findings of this independent panel is that 
Lieutenant General Glosson improperly attempted to influence the 
promotion--not that he should have known, not that he might have been 
construed to, not that he inadvertently did something, not that it 
might appear that he did something. The finding is that he attempted 
improperly to influence a promotion. The DOD inspector general, Derek 
Vander Schaaf, reached the same conclusion, that Lieutenant General 
Glosson's communications were highly improper.
  Retiring in grade above two stars, with an additional pension, 
requires Senate confirmation because it is a reward for exemplary 
service. It should not be a right. It should not be automatic.
  General Glosson's actions to influence the promotion board through 
improper communication violated regulations and basic principles of 
honorable conduct to which he, as a high ranking officer, was 
especially responsible to adhere to.
  Officer promotion boards are near sacred. The committee has witnessed 
problems with these boards in the past, with the Air Force, Navy, and 
Marine Corps; and has done extensive work over the past several years 
to try to maintain the integrity of the military services' promotion 
system and to prevent unauthorized interference with promotion boards.
  The committee was so concerned that it instructed the Department of 
Defense to look at the selection process in all of the services. And in 
1991, the committee passed legislation specifically relating to 
promotion board procedures.
  In 1992, the committee completed a report on the conduct of 
proceedings for the selection of officers for promotion in the United 
States Air Force. In that report, the committee found, ``there were 
serious, significant deficiencies in Air Force promotion practices,'' 
and warned the following:

       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 established laws and regulations 
     is necessary to ensure that the best qualified officers are 
     selected for promotion and that the officer corps has 
     confidence in the integrity of the selection process.

  If we approve this nomination when we know--indeed, I believe it is 
conceded in the majority report, as was found by the independent 
panel--that General Glosson improperly attempted to interfere with the 
promotion board, I believe it will undermine our efforts to promote 
integrity in the military services promotion system.
  Early on in the Senate Armed Services Committee proceedings in this 
matter, the main issue was whether or not Lieutenant Glosson lied about 
his actions. The November 1993 inspector general's report concluded 
that, ``Lieutenant General Glosson improperly communicated with the 
complainants''--that is the three generals who blew the whistle on him, 
that had enough guts and courage to blow the whistle on a fellow 
officer. The finding is that he improperly communicated with those 
three generals and did so with the intent to influence--``with the 
intent to influence their consideration''--of the officer being 
considered for promotion during that selection board. The inspector 
general also found that Lieutenant General Glosson lied under oath 
``during our interview in describing the nature and circumstances of 
his communications to the complainants''--that is to the three generals 
who blew the whistle--``and Lieutenant General Glosson lied in his 
comments to those three generals.'' The special fact finders that 
reviewed the inspector general's report and the related materials 
agreed with the inspector general that the three generals that Glosson 
improperly contacted were telling the truth about those contacts. And 
this is what the fact finders said, this independent panel.

       In sum, we believe that the preponderance of evidence shows 
     that the three conversations happened substantially as 
     Lieutenant General Nowack, Ryan, and Myers recall. [Those are 
     the three generals.] And that Lieutenant General Glosson 
     improperly attempted to influence the promotions.

  This is what the panel went on to say:

       We wish to be absolutely clear that in our view Generals 
     Nowack, Ryan, and Myers were truthful to the inspector 
     general's investigators and to us.

  Indeed, the three fact finders praised those three generals for their 
actions after the improper contact, noting that all three generals 
contacted by General Glosson, ``were truthful, acted with integrity in 
reporting what they considered to be inappropriate attempts to 
influence a promotion board, and then asking to be excused from service 
on the board.''
  They had to ask to be excused from service because of the improper 
contacts.
  And the independent panel then went on to say that their actions in 
this regard were proper and helped maintain the integrity of the Air 
Force promotion system. Then the independent panel found that General 
Glosson remembered the events incorrectly, as distinguished from 
intentionally lying. He just remembered wrong. And the independent 
panel said Lieutenant General Glosson thinks his version is accurate, 
and that it represents fairly what at this point he recalls. In short, 
the panel found, we believe that he is not deliberately lying, but is 
simply mistaken.
  Now, the line that the fact finders attempted to draw in my book is 
too fine to be seen by me. But, frankly, that is not the problem. The 
problem is that even though the truthfulness issue might be finessable, 
what is not finessable is the finding of the fact finders--those same 
fact finders--that General Glosson attempted improperly to influence a 
promotion board. That is the stark finding of the fact finders. And of 
the Department of Defense Inspector General.
  That is serious business. Just how seriously we take it will be 
determined, I believe, tomorrow. And just what type of signal we send 
out--we, the Senate, send out about this attempt to improperly 
influence, will be determined by this vote tomorrow.
  Now, this is not easy for me to say because I happen to know that 
General Glosson has had an extremely distinguished career. And it is 
never easy to reach this kind of conclusion. But I believe that that 
finding of that panel, which we asked to be created and which 
apparently is accepted, leaves us no alternative if we are going to be 
serious about our own statements of just how important these promotion 
boards are.
  So, that is what we are faced with--no fun. But that is what we are 
faced with. And we may want to try to say he has been punished enough 
because he might have gotten a fourth star had he continued and he 
retired early because of this problem. We can all speculate as to 
whether he would have been promoted further or would have achieved even 
greater success. That is speculation. That is not our decision, or our 
vote.
  We have to vote, we have to make a decision, we have to send a signal 
as to whether or not we are going to, in effect, I believe, reward, to 
give him a privilege that he is not entitled to or it would not be in 
front of us for confirmation. It is in front of us for confirmation 
because it is not automatic. It is in front of us for confirmation 
because we must reach a judgment. And when confronted with a finding as 
stark as the finding of an independent panel that he attempted to 
improperly influence the promotion board, I believe that no matter how 
difficult it is for us, that we must say that this nomination cannot be 
confirmed if we are serious about the integrity of the promotion boards 
in the Air Force.
  Madam President, in closing, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, because I think that, in the approach he has 
taken, he has laid out the facts before us for our judgment.
  It was a difficult committee decision. It was a 14-to-7 vote, with 
Members on both side of the aisle voting both ways. Minority findings 
were filed by myself and Senators Glenn and Kempthorne.
  As difficult as it was, I believe that chairman, in attempting to lay 
out the facts of this case for us, has done the Senate a real service 
so that then we can judge whether or not we, as a Senate, want to put, 
in effect, our approval on a retirement as a three-star for someone who 
so recently has been found by an independent panel to have violated a 
very important ethical standard of the Air Force.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, there will be no further rollcall vote 
this evening. A rollcall vote will occur at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. 
All Senators are requested to be present at that time for that vote.

                          ____________________