[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Lt. Gen. Buster C. 
Glosson for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general on the 
retired list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 25 minutes of debate on the 
nomination with 15 minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Grassley]; 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Nunn]; and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Glenn] from my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I regret very much that I must rise in 
opposition to the nomination before the Senate to confirm the 
retirement of Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson in grade at the three-star level. 
I regret very much that I must oppose this nomination.
  There has been a great deal of dispute surrounding General Glosson's 
nomination. But several facts, in my opinion, are not in dispute: 
General Glosson contacted three officers designated to serve on the 
major general selection board with what a joint DOD/Air Force inspector 
general investigation report concluded was--and I quote their words--
``an intent to influence their consideration'' of a particular 
officer's promotion.
  Now, that is outside what is supposed to happen in the military with 
regard to promotion boards. We asked for an outside panel to consider 
this and the outside panel concluded that General Glosson, while they 
said he did not lie, he just remembered incorrectly. That is a rather 
fine line.
  Madam President, Secretary Widnall saw fit to issue a letter of 
admonishment.
  The integrity of officer selection boards in the military is near 
sacred. I do not know whether people realize how closely these boards 
are watched and how they are looked. Any kind of activity, just as in 
General Glosson's case, is strictly prohibited and he knew it.
  It is very difficult to say that while in the past we have refused 
promotions on these grounds, at the same time over at the academies, we 
say, ``OK, midshipman, you just happened to be cheating on an exam, an 
electrical engineering exam, and we can kick you out. You can go back 
to your home and your family and you are guilty of ethics violations.'' 
We say to them, ``You're gone, out, kicked out, not even permitted to 
have a career.'' And, at the same time, we turn around and say the 
honor code can be violated at the top levels of the Military 
Establishment by trying to influence who goes into the top jobs in the 
military. We can wink at that and say it does not really mean anything. 
In other words, honor seems to be only for the lower ranks, and that 
should not be the case.
  I do not know whether everybody realizes what the honor code means in 
the military, but it means that people live up to a code that is 
important for life and death matters.
  And the honor code, Madam President, is not just a ``sometimes'' 
thing. It is something that people live by and it is something that the 
cadets and the midshipmen and the plebes at the academies are imbued 
with from the very first day that they come in. If they violate that 
code, we kick them out. We have done that in the last few years.
  At the same time, at the very top levels of the Air Force, where, I 
must say, we have had problems in the past also with interference with 
promotion boards, we somehow say, ``Well, it is OK there because he has 
had a long career and distinguished career and all that.''
  I do not quarrel with that. But in the name of honor, to say that we 
are going to kick kids out of the academy and at the same time, in the 
name of honor, we are going to recommend promotion for those involved 
in for more serious violation at top end of the rank scale is wrong and 
unfair.
  I think approving this nomination basically tells the students at the 
academies, the junior officers, that honor is only for the lower ranks 
when we reward wrongdoing at the flag officer level with promotions. 
That is just flat wrong.
  Madam President, honor is not something that continues throughout a 
career. When we go into a noncommissioned officers' promotion board, we 
do not say, ``Well, OK, here is the list I want no matter what the 
promotion board says.'' No, that would be wrong. So we know that and we 
do not try and do that and we would fire anybody that tried to do it.
  The committee voted on this saying, ``Well, this was an aberration. 
This was an aberration in an otherwise distinguished career.''
  I would submit, Madam President, that it may have been an aberration 
in the lives of the cadets and midshipmen who were kicked out of the 
academies for cheating on exams, cheating on exams that would have been 
overlooked at the most colleges and universities. But the people in the 
academies and military service are held to an exceptionally high code 
of honor and to violate that code of honor in saying that, when it is 
violated at the top level, we will somehow dismiss this and say it is 
no longer important because it is at high level and because there has 
been a career behind it and at the same time trying to enforce it at 
the academies is just plain wrong.
  Honor is not a sometimes thing. It is not something you choose to 
pick up and lay down. It is a way of life in the military and people 
live that way of life because it is important for battle conditions 
where life and death decisions must be made.
  I just cannot see us rewarding wrongdoing at the flag level while we 
will not let it be permitted at the lower levels. I think that is 
wrong.
  I regret that I have to oppose General Glosson's promotion. He is a 
fine person, otherwise. We know him over here from his days when he had 
service over here on the Hill. But that does not excuse what happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield me 1 more minute?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we have had problems in this area in the 
past. We had a problem in the promotion to major general in the Marine 
Corps one time several years ago. We corrected that situation. We had 
another situation like this in the Navy. We had another in the top 
levels of the Air Force.
  We took this so seriously on the committee that we had DOD convene a 
special group to go through the whole promotion board process and 
promulgate new rules and regulations, which we did. This was supposed 
to cure the situation. Now we find the same thing happening again in 
the Air Force where we have had particular problems in the past.
  I cannot see us going ahead and condoning this. I am sorry to oppose 
General Glosson, but I think, in the interest of keeping the honor code 
intact up and down the full length of the military chain, I have no way 
to oppose that except to oppose General Glosson. I am sorry to have to 
do that, but I hope we defeat his nomination.
  I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for yielding me the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  I want to thank the Senator from Ohio for the position that he has 
taken. Senator Levin last night gave a very good speech on the subject 
and I appreciate his support.
  First of all, I want my colleagues to understand that this is indeed 
a promotion. The general officer announcement put out by the Department 
of Defense announces that General Glosson has been nominated, in their 
words, ``for advancement.'' It is up to the Senate now to determine if 
General Glosson's record since his last promotion warrants one final 
promotion.
  This is not a matter of taking away a star from General Glosson. You 
cannot take away something that is not there. It is the Senate's 
responsibility to award that star or deny it. If this is not true, then 
why is this nomination for advancement before us?
  Second, there is a record on General Glosson resulting from a 
criminal investigation by the independent Office of Inspector General 
of the Department of Defense. That record says that 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.
  A subsequent panel examined the same evidence as the inspectors 
general and came away with the same conclusion for the same reason with 
one semantical difference.
  A dark cloud still hangs over General Glosson's name. He tampered 
with the promotion board, and he was not truthful about what he did.
  This issue in this nomination is really all about and nothing but 
integrity--integrity as it applies to General Glosson and also 
integrity as it relates to our responsibilities in the U.S. Senate.
  In my view, this confirmation comes down to one thing: It is an issue 
of integrity versus friendship. And I know that he made a lot of 
friends here in the Senate. I know that he facilitated a tremendous 
amount of access for people up here over at the Pentagon. But 
friendship should not be the No. 1 concern of this body in carrying out 
its responsibilities in the confirmation process.
  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, but she did not speak on behalf 
of General Glosson. 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, scurrying to protect him, 
trying to whisk him through the nomination and confirmation process. 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 military men and women across America. And 
it would give the U.S. Senate a blemish on our record.
  Let me respond to some of the points raised last night by my friend, 
the Senator from Georgia. The first point is that the Senator from 
Georgia admits that General Glosson knew he was interfering with the 
promotion process. This was a clear violation of Air Force regulations 
and that is point No. 1.
  Point No. 2, the bottom-line distinction between the Senator from 
Georgia and this Senator from Iowa, is the degree of punishment 
required. I will come back to that point in just a bit.
  The Senator from Georgia admits that he is a friend of General 
Glosson. But we should still even hold our friends to very tough 
standards. You see, General Glosson broke the same rule in tampering 
with a promotion board that this committee was so concerned about just 
3 years ago. In 1991, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended 
making violation of this very rule, 36 to 9, into a criminal offense. 
Let me quote from the committee report:

       Improper influence on the board would be prohibited, and 
     violation of the regulations implementing this section would 
     constitute a criminal violation of the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice.

  Therefore, if we judge General Glosson by the very same standards 
that the Armed Services Committee proposed in 1991, he could be facing 
a potential court-martial rather than being promoted here on the floor 
with a third star rank. That is why I suggest to my colleagues that 
this is an issue of integrity versus friendship. I hope this body knows 
which principle is more important to the American people.
  The reaction--in 1991 the Air Force failed to comply with the 
directions issued by Cap Weinberger on the promotion process, 8 years 
ago. The reaction by the committee then was to block the retirement of 
Lieutenant General Hickey in grade for refusing to implement the 
changes favored by Weinberger and favored by the committee. He was 
forced by the committee then to do exactly what I am asking my 
colleagues that we do for General Glosson. What is good for the goose 
is good for the gander--we should take this matter seriously--and to 
deny him a promotion.
  Now on the issue of lying. Last night the distinguished chairman said 
that every lawyer knows that to charge someone with perjury you have to 
show intent. I believe that is exactly what this investigation did. 
That is why the conclusions were signed off on by the Air Force JAG and 
by the Air Force general counsel, who, by the way, are obviously 
lawyers. Intent, mens rea, as it is known, could not have been 
determined easily by the outside panel as I mentioned last night. Last 
night I spoke about the investigative process. As a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I think I am familiar with that. In legal 
proceedings, facts are determined by skilled factfinders: The trial 
courts. In ensuing appeals, the appellate courts are to provide 
deference to the factfinding of the trial courts. This deference is 
especially strong where the district court's factual findings were 
based on live testimony, where the district court was able to evaluate 
the credibility of the witnesses, based on the testimony and mens rea.
  The IG heard all the witnesses, and their findings on credibility 
should not be dismissed lightly. Because parties often disagree about 
the facts and because anyone can testify in a self-serving way, the 
processes of cross-examination and observing credibility are extremely 
important in resolving the factual inconsistencies in litigation 
generally. The three-member panel did hear live testimony. However the 
panel's live testimony was taken long after the IG's heard testimony, 
nearly 1 year after the time when witnesses' memories, except 
apparently General Glosson's, were very much fresher. In my view, 
therefore, the three-member panel review does little to persuade me the 
IGs' finding of lying was wrong. This is especially true since a panel 
of factfinders said General Glosson's testimony to them was evasive and 
misleading.
  Finally, let me address the issue of the possible court-martial 
effects. The Senator from Georgia last night said I made one mistake. 
He said interfering with the promotion procession is not a possible 
court-martial offense, but rather an administrative offense. And of 
course leaving aside the fact that the committee's own standards was to 
make it a criminal offense, let me address the Senator's point 
directly.
  I have in my hand a letter from the American law division of the 
Library of Congress. And their opinion begs to differ with that offered 
by the chairman last night. I am not going to read it. On three 
different articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, this 
memorandum says that a prosecution is conceivable, given the 
allegations similar to those against General Glosson. So in closing I 
suggest that the American law division's opinion is squarely on all 
fours with the committee's proposed standards of 1991.
  Madam President, I reiterate to my colleagues that this is an issue 
of integrity versus friendship. This nomination fails on all standards 
but one, and that one is friendship. And that is not what this 
institution should be in business pushing--certainly not ahead of 
integrity.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a lot of questions I had prepared to ask of the distinguished 
chairman last night but did not have time. These questions remain 
unanswered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)


                      impact on inspector general

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, let me touch on another downside in 
voting for General Glosson's promotion: the impact such action by the 
Senate will have on the Office of the Inspector General at DOD and on 
inspector generals throughout the Government.
  As my colleagues well know, we passed the Inspector General Act to 
establish a watchdog in the executive branch who would look out for the 
interests of the taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, over the years it has been difficult to ensure that 
the IG's have the knee braces necessary to withstand political pressure 
and make the tough calls.
  We are fortunate in this case that the DOD IG has shown strong 
resolve, has made the tough decisions, and done so in the face of 
fierce opposition from the ``E'' Ring at the Pentagon.
  The IG did not shrink from its duty regarding General Glosson. The 
IG's report does not equivocate, or hedge, or caveat its findings.
  It is this type of commendable action that we hoped would be 
commonplace when Congress passed the Inspector General Act.
  Instead of taking steps to support this strong action by the DOD IG, 
by voting to promote General Glosson, the Senate is sending the 
absolute wrong signal.
  Voting to promote General Glosson is a slap in the face to all IG's 
who are trying to do a good job. It is telling IG's throughout the 
Government that the U.S. Senate doesn't care if you do your job 
honestly and diligently, the U.S. Senate will disregard your findings 
that public officials have violated the law and lied. Not only 
disregard, but give a promotion to people the IG has found guilty of 
violating the law and lying.
  There is another aspect to this vote which undermines the IG. Not 
only are we saying that we will ignore the IG's findings and will 
promote those who the IG finds have lied and broken the rules. We are 
also saying if we do not like the IG report, we will put together our 
own panel, select the members and tell them to do another 
investigation.
  Why do we even bother having an IG if we are going to put together 
our own investigation if we do not like the findings?
  We are setting a terrible precedent by turning our back on the IG's 
work. And in doing so we are causing great harm to the Office of the 
Inspector General at DOD and similar IG offices throughout the 
Government.

                               Exhibit 1

       1. How do you explain the Committee's recommendation for 
     confirmation of LTG Glosson to the midshipmen at the Naval 
     Academy who saw their peers expelled for cheating on a test? 
     Hasn't the Committee set up a double standard?
       2. The IGs and the factfinders agree that LTG Glosson lied 
     to the three selection board members when he told them that 
     General X had lied to the Chief of Staff and also when he 
     told them that the Chief of Staff did not want General X 
     promoted? Why are those lies not discussed in the Committee 
     Report on the nomination?
       3. Although the Committee Report on the nomination states 
     that improper communication to selection board members is an 
     administrative matter, not a criminal offense, wasn't the IG 
     investigation run as a criminal investigation on the advice 
     of the Air Force Judge Advocate General? Didn't the Judge 
     Advocate General believe that the allegations by the three 
     board members, if substantiated, could warrant consideration 
     under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Was the Judge 
     Advocate General's advice incorrect?
       4. Don't LTG Glosson's proven actions to interfere with the 
     promotion board (including making false statements) 
     constitute Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, a violation of 
     Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
       5. Why do the factfinders comment only on those witnesses 
     who testified favorably about Gen. Glosson's integrity and 
     not comment on those witnesses who were not favorable to LTG 
     Glosson in their testimony before the factfinders and the 
     IGs.
       6. What explanation have you received from DoD regarding 
     why the Secretary of the Air Force's sole action in the 
     matter was to give LTG Glosson a letter of admonishment for 
     creating an appearance problem? Since she was brand new in 
     her job, from whom did the Secretary of the Air Force seek 
     advice on how to address this matter?
       7. Did the Secretary of the Air Force's action start a 
     chain of cover up actions by the DoD to protect LTG Glosson?
       8. Didn't the DoD and Air Force senior leaders repeatedly 
     tell the Senate that the allegations were a result of mutual 
     misunderstanding between LTG Glosson and the three selection 
     board members? Do their statements in this matter raise 
     concerns about the overall good judgment of the people 
     running DoD and the Air Force?
       9. In assessing LTG Glosson's suitability for retirement in 
     grade, did the Committee consider testimony from the Air 
     Force Chief of Staff that LTG Glosson told him that the three 
     selection board members were engaged in a conspiracy to 
     fabricate allegations against LTG Glosson and thereby 
     embarass the Chief of Staff? What does this say about LTG 
     Glosson's character?
       10. What message does the Committee's recommendation give 
     to other generals and admirals? And to all other members of 
     the Armed Forces?
       11. The Committee Report on the nomination implies that 
     only a criminal conviction is sufficient reason to deny 
     retirement in grade to three and four star officers. Is this 
     the Committee's view?
       12. Since 1990, on how many instances has the Committee 
     acted to deny retirement in grade to a three or four star 
     officer? What were the circumstances of each case?
       13. Since 1990, on how many instances has the Department 
     not submitted the nomination of a three or four star officer 
     to retire in grade? What were the circumstances of each case?
       14. Why was the DoD unable to address adequately the 
     Committee's concerns in testimony before the Committee on 
     March 9, May 17, May 24 and June 27, 1994 and in its multiple 
     written submissions to the Committee?
       15. When the Committee directed the DoD to obtain a review 
     by persons not involved in the matter, why did DoD cause the 
     review to be performed by persons who either knew LTG Glosson 
     or who were associates of LTG Glosson's supporters in the 
     DoD? Why didn't DoD get factfinders who brought no baggage to 
     the table?
       16. Does the Committee's recommendation to the Senate serve 
     to improve the military promotion process?
       17. While LTG Glosson may have served well as a Captain in 
     Viet Nam and as a one star general in the Gulf War, how do 
     you characterize his service as a three star officer? Isn't 
     that the question here?
       18. Do you see a moral distinction between trying to help a 
     friend get promoted and trying to block a promotion, as did 
     LTG Glosson, because of a grudge?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired. 
Who yields time? The Senator from Georgia and the Senator from South 
Carolina each control 5 minutes.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, it is Saturday, the 103d Congress is 
about over, and I intend to be brief. I want to make it clear, however, 
that this brevity should not be interpreted as a lack of resolve to see 
this fine officer confirmed to retire as a three-star general. Let us 
review very briefly the facts.
  Everyone in the administration from the President of the United 
States on down who has reviewed the information on General Glosson has 
recommended that he retire as a lieutenant general.
  I remind the Senate that President Clinton has recommended this, 
Secretary of Defense Aspin recommended it, Secretary of Defense Perry 
recommended it, Secretary of the Air Force Widnall recommended it; the 
Air Force Chief of Staff McPeak recommended it. They all recommend 
Lieutenant General Glosson retire in the rank of lieutenant general. 
How can all these people be wrong? They are not biased. They looked 
into it carefully.
  Next, his remarkable war record in Vietnam: General Glosson flew 139 
combat missions. During Desert Storm Lieutenant General Glosson planned 
and helped supervise the execution of the most successful air campaign 
in our Nation's history--a very able man, a patriotic man, a dedicated 
man.
  Lieutenant General Glosson made the mistake of speaking to some board 
members when he should not have. This indiscretion caused him to 
receive an adverse letter and retire before his career had reached 
completion. Without doubt, this has caused both him and his family 
extensive personal discomfort.
  The adverse results of the inspector general report were rejected. 
You hear talk about this inspector general's report--that was gone into 
by a panel appointed by the Defense Department. And they rejected 
that--by this special 3-person panel appointed by the Department of 
Defense.
  General Glosson has given his country 29 years of his life. During 
those 29 years he has been willing to lay his life down in the defense 
of his country. It is hard for me to believe that we would seriously 
contemplate retiring this outstanding officer at a lesser grade for a 
single indiscretion. I urge each of you to vote to retire General 
Glosson as lieutenant general. It is only fair. It is only right to do 
this. It is only right for him and his family and his country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I am grateful for the leadership of the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Nunn, and 
especially for that of the remarkable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Thurmond].
  They have advised on and consented to the nomination of Gen. Buster 
Glosson to retire as a lieutenant general, a wise and informed position 
the Senate would have done well to follow.
  His career began in 1965 when he graduated from the ROTC Program at 
the University of North Carolina State. From that day on, his life has 
been a series of successfully completed missions and assignments. An 
extraordinary ability to inspire the confidence of his superiors and 
the loyalty of his subordinates have characterized his entire service.
  Sucess, is not always an unalloyed advantage. It has at least one 
negative effect. Those who can not replicate it often feel constrained 
to denigrate it. In a pyramidal structure like the Air force any senior 
officer is in a position of extreme visibility, a target, and 
inevitably constitutes completion. And so it was with Glosson.
  It is unfortunate that in the process of reviewing the general's 
qualifications, every possible decision was informed, or rather 
misinformed by the general's detractors rather than illuminated by his 
own performance, and the testimony of those who knew him best. 
Otherwise we would not now be discussing his nomination, for he would 
not have resigned.
  One of the most moving tributes to any man that I have ever read was 
volunteered to the Senate Armed Services Committee by five pilots who 
flew, under General Glosson's direction, the previously untried F-
117's, called by the world, Stealth bombers. These are the aircraft 
that won the gulf war, aircraft Glosson had to send out knowing that 
each pilot in them also knew there was a high possibility he might 
never come home, not because of anything wrong with the planes or still 
less their pilots, but because the triple A was sometimes so thick in 
the air a bee would have been in danger.
  General Glosson instructed these pilots not only in how to fly 
missions, but on how to describe them on return--truthfully, whatever 
mistakes might have been made. I would like the Nation to read that 
letter.
  If my grandchildren ever enter the armed services of their country, 
this is the kind of man I want them under: A man who tells his 
subordinates as General Glosson did, that their most important mission 
in life--not just in battle, but in life, is to take care of their 
people; a man who is a fighter pilot with over 3,800 flying hours who 
has never lost a wingman; a man who told a thousand fighter pilots a 
few hours before sending them to war.

       There is not a damn thing in Iraq worth dying for until the 
     first soldier, marine or airman crosses the border  *  *  *  
     then your responsibility has no limit  *  *  *  good luck and 
     godspeed.

  The story that follows is not a pretty one, yet I am afraid it is all 
too typical in today's Washington. It is a saga of people in positions 
of public power attempting to use that public power for private 
purposes.
  It began this way. In early September 1993 Air Force Chief of Staff 
McPeak informed selected Senators and senior congressional staff that 
Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson would be nominated for his fourth star for the 
position of Vice Chief of Staff.
  That was a great achievement for General Glosson, but not good news 
for the Air Force, as the Vice Chief of a service is always the obvious 
candidate to move up to the top position. But this was not something 
the Airforce liked as Glosson was not an insider, not in the group of 
Academy graduates, who had always run things its own way, and intended 
to continue. Glosson was a visible, talented, fast moving outsider with 
new ideas for organizing the force, which were not necessarily derived 
from academy assigned text books.
  He combined technical skills with managerial know how, and a vast 
reservoir of energy with brains. He acted faster, better, and without 
terror at the thought of change.
  Worse--from the insiders' point of view, Glosson had distinguished 
himself at every level of his career culminating in his brilliant 
conduct of the air war in the gulf. After planning that war he 
commanded all Air Force fighter and bomber missions flown in Iraq. And 
his eye was always, not only on the target, but on the invaluable lives 
of those he sent into battle. Future students of military engagements 
will find his casualty rates at an all time low.
  Now there is a profile to strike terror into a Washington cadre of 
desk and pencil warriors. The Air Force, thought the Academy boys, must 
be saved from the likes of Glosson. After an intensive search and 
apparently very careful planning, for it was difficult to find anything 
negative about this man, they had to settle for charging him with an 
attempt to influence a promotion board.
  This admittedly arcane Air Force restriction was a slim reed on which 
to fabricate a charge which would end in resignation, but it was all 
they had. And Glosson's brilliant record was making it harder every 
day. But the Academy Air Force had no wish to be eclipsed by a blue 
version of General Schwarzkoph. This kind of group-think is not 
unprecedented in military history. It was only recently that a group of 
midshipmen decided that loyalty to one's buddy was more important than 
telling the truth on a matter related to the honor of the service.
  The generals themselves have admitted under oath that they got 
together and discussed want they did next, although amazingly little of 
it appears in the record. The three generals, Nowak, Ryan, and Myers 
stated that they had three or four conversations together on the 
subject of their subsequent accusations. But their testimony was so 
similar that a junior police officer would recognize its improbability.
  Their choice of an accusation was not an entirely random pick given 
that Glosson, in the normal course of conduct, had expressed 
dissatisfaction with the man's performance in front of at least half a 
dozen other officers.
  This, of course, was only wrong if the general knew when he spoke 
that those present were certainly on that individual's promotion board 
and wrong only if the general said did what he did specifically to 
affect the proceeding in the promotion board. For if every comment 
about another person can only be made after polling a given room to see 
if present company is apt to act on his nomination we have created an 
absurd new standard of conduct. It is interesting to see how many 
people have pronounced him guilty of the intent to affect proceedings 
without the faintest idea how such ability might even be defined.
  If Glosson had one problem it was in telling too much of the truth. 
He had expressed himself, as everyone who knows him knows he is apt to 
do, bluntly on the inferior performance of an incompetent Air Force 
general. Witnesses testified for the record that he had been doing this 
for at least 2 years before the man was promotable.
  But suddenly in the ears of Generals Myers, Ryan, and Nowak this 
became a specific effort to suggest a specific action to a specific 
promotion board which had not convened and whose composition had not 
been announced. It is a testimony to General Glosson's probity that 
this is the best that Generals Ryan, Myers, and Nowak could do. But 
finding nothing else of which to accuse their rival and after 
sufficient collusion, the three generals reported their allegations to 
General Butler, president of the promotion board, and General Carns, 
Vice Chief of the Air Force.
  These two took the matter to the Air Force Secretary, probably secure 
in the knowledge that the current political climate, a climate in which 
senior military officers are now routinely excoriated for political 
reasons, would make it impossible for her to defend one.
  And indeed, Air force Secretary Widnall decided on an investigation 
by the Air force inspector general, a man named Fischer, whose 
competition with and dislike for Glosson were well known within Air 
Force circles. In fact, Glosson had urged General McPeak to force 
Fischer into early retirement after Glosson learned that Fischer had 
made improper sexual advances to a protocol officer, on an official 
visit to Eglin Air Force Base, a matter Fischer initially lied about, 
but later admitted.
  Secretary Widnall was warned that Fischer was not an unbiased 
investigator. In a gross misuse of power Widnall acknowledged Fischer's 
bias against Glosson but permitted him to conduct the investigation 
anyway.
  The results of the ensuring investigation were surprising in only one 
way. Fischer omitted from it the testimony of three individuals who 
were witnesses to the alleged effort by Glosson to prevent the 
promotion, say that General Glosson did no such thing and refuted all 
or part of each officer's allegation. Amazingly, perhaps recognizing 
the weakness of his ground, the IG added to the charge the general's 
own protestation of innocence, calling it a lie under oath, a charge 
subsequently found to be unsupported by the final panel.

  When General Glosson attempted to clear himself from these star 
chamber allegations he was told by General Counsel Cheston that he had 
been given all materials considered by the inspector general 
sufficiently relevant and appropriate. He was told that five additional 
memoranda would be kept from him. We now know why. These memoranda 
reveal that Generals Loh, Yates, Oaks, and Carns were asked to comment 
on the comparative general truthfulness of the complainants and General 
Glosson. In other words, they were asked, will you insult three of your 
colleagues or just one? An interesting evidentiary procedure.
  General Horner has stated for the record that he was provided a 
biased view of the evidence before his testimony was solicited. 
Evidently General Glosson was not intended to discover that this was 
routine procedure. Obviously if Glosson was not to be given any 
evidence against him he had no chance to answer his accusers--and this 
in 20th century America?
  After Major General Henry testified in Glosson's favor he was 
subsequently reinterviewed in a confrontational and disrespectful 
manner, the everyday word is browbeaten, with the suggestion that he 
was lying. Oddly enough this technique was never used on those 
supporting the preconceived verdict of the IG. General Henry's 
testimony should have been an insurmountable obstacle to the 
impeachment of General Glosson's credibility as in fact it was. But the 
IG's ingenuity was equal to the task.
  A second phone call was invented, one that General Henry did not 
hear, one that even General Ryan could not subscribe to. But it was not 
a problem for the IG to attempt to indict General Glosson on the basis 
of a phantom phone call. I wonder if the Senate could not better use 
its time on an investigation of the IG process and personnel in the 
Department of Defense. Their procedures do more to indict themselves 
than anyone else.
  This whole story is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, ``verdict 
first, trial afterward''. When an aggressive and prosecutorial 
Department of Defense inspector general conducts what the independent 
final report calls argumentative grillings of one side and sycophantic, 
respectful ones of the side they support, the inspector is out of 
control. When an Air Force IG engaged in tactics like calling Air Force 
generals with questions like, ``these three generals say one thing, 
General Glosson says something else, who would you believe?'' It is the 
same. Now these people may not be lawyers, but they are adults. They 
should know better.
  As a result of this investigation Widnall issued an improper letter 
of admonishment to Glosson, which was enough at his level to terminate 
his future in the Air Force. He had no choice but to resign.
  His resignation, however, was not enough. The Air Force faction, with 
vitriol worthy of the Borgias, decided to force Glosson's retirement as 
a two star, despite the custom which would normally prevail: To retire 
with the rank held at the time of resignation. Since Widnall, McPeak, 
and the then Secretary of Defense Aspin, had all recommended the three 
star level, and sent that recommendation to the White House, a flurry 
of activity aimed at Congress began inside the Air Force, whose 
officers, Mr. President, should have had better things to do with the 
taxpayer's time.
  Moreover when the nomination went to the White House, the Air Force 
supported by elements of the inspector general group, began a series of 
highly unethical press leaks, in an illegal effort to do by devious 
means what could not be done honorably and openly. This had no effect 
on the White House, which sent to the Senate the three star 
recommendation, but it could have had a considerable one on the 
reputation of the man and his family. But such considerations were not 
of interests to the prosecutors.
  But the accusers' techniques nearly backfired. Having taken the 
matter to the press they had to live with an investigative reporter's 
double discovery: First that everyone in the Air Force, including Chief 
McPeak, knew about the sexual malefactions of IG Fisher, kept them 
quiet, kept him on active duty for 6 months and recommended his 
retirement with three stars. Second, that Inspector General Fisher's 
bias was known to Widnall when she made the investigation assignment. 
These were two indefensible decisions, and amazing ones in the wake of 
Tailhook. One can not help but notice that admitted sexual harassment 
in the Air Force is passed over without comment but unproven 
allegations of influencing a promotion is a terminal offense.
  Finally, the matter went to the final review panel at the insistence 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the final review panel said 
yet again that General Glosson told no lies. The final review panel's 
members, usually careful people, inadvertently I am sure, took 
character references from everyone in this shameful episode known to 
support the Air force clique and neglected to interview five of the 
seven people who had supervised Glosson as a general officer and who 
have said, informally, some directly to me, that they would have been 
happy to have had the chance to deny strange remarks unprofessionally 
included in the record--like, ``this might be the sort of thing he 
could have done.'' I am not a lawyer, but it is clear to me that if 
this is what sort of thing that passes for evidence in IG 
investigations we are in very poor shape indeed.
  And evidence is what is needed. One certainly should not force a 
man's resignation, deny him his duly earned rank, and destroy his 
reputation on the ephemera of impressionistic characterizations.
  Most of those involved in this matter, and many others none of whom 
who are in interested or adversarial relations with General Glosson, 
wholeheartedly support his candidacy. The pilots and others who have 
worked under him, support and admire him. The uniformed bureaucrats in 
Washington press think otherwise. I believe that the Senate should have 
stood with the pilots.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes, the 
Senator from South Carolina has 2 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. I yield to Senator Lott the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, might I inquire how much time that might 
be?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 50 seconds.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, therefore I will certainly be very brief.
  I first just want to make it very clear that I do not know General 
Glosson personally. I base my decision on this issue strictly on the 
hearings we had in the Armed Services Committee. There is no doubt in 
my mind, though, that Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson should be retired in 
grade. He has had a distinguished career, one of the most distinguished 
Air Force careers that we have now among everybody currently in service 
in the Air Force.
  His service as a F-4 pilot in Vietnam, his combat missions had 
already been noted. His responsibility for planning and implementing 
the air campaign and Operation Desert Storm--for all of those who are 
familiar with what he did there, they say he did an exemplary job. He 
is a strong leader and his service as Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Plans and Operations were all outstanding and I think it is 
appropriate that record be referred to. In my opinion after spending a 
lot of time reading on this issue, studying it very carefully, I am 
convinced that the IG investigation of this matter was biased.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point 
at least one newspaper article that refers to the biased investigation 
of the inspector general.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 14, 1994]

              IG in Probe of General Had Been Investigated

                         (By Rowan Scarborough)

       The Air Force general who directed a promotion-tampering 
     investigation of a Persian Gulf war hero had himself been 
     accused of sexual harassment when the probe began, according 
     to senior Pentagon officials.
       Lt. Gen. Eugene Fischer, accused of kissing a junior female 
     officer on the mouth, was asked to retire early before 
     conducting the probe.
       Gen. Fischer was Air Force inspector general (IG) when he 
     found Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson guilty of meddling last year in 
     the promotion of a brigadier general. Gen. Glosson, a 
     decorated Gulf war officer, was admonished for his actions.
       The fact that Gen. Fischer had been accused of sexual 
     harassment was one of several irregularities in the Glosson 
     inquiry.
       Gen. Fischer also exposed the confidential investigation to 
     outside influence by seeking advice from Air Force generals 
     not connected to the probe, the officials said.
       Gen. Glosson has denied wrongdoing and said witnesses who 
     testified in his favor were basically ignored in Gen. 
     Fischer's findings.
       The Glosson investigation was traumatic for the Air Force. 
     It derailed the promising career of one of its most famous 
     officers, a fighter pilot who planned the successful air war 
     against Iraq. He seemed destined to gain a fourth star and to 
     perhaps eventually become Air Force chief of staff.
       After Gen. Fischer's probe, Gen. Glosson requested early 
     retirement, but the issue is not over. Under military law, 
     the Senate must vote on whether to retire the general at full 
     rank, and at least one senator is waging a public battle to 
     strip Gen. Glosson of his third star.
       Interviews conducted by the Washington Times with Pentagon 
     and Air Force officials show irregularities in the Glosson 
     investigation, including:
       Gen. Merrill McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, asked Gen. 
     Fischer to retire last summer, one year after receiving a 
     report on a sexual harassment complaint brought by a female 
     captain at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Gen Fischer convinced 
     Gen. McPeak to let him stay until November, a month after he 
     completed the Glosson probe.
       ``He should have gone early, but the chief was too soft. I 
     think the chief was too nice to him,'' said an Air Force 
     official.
       Lt. Col. Doug McCoy, a spokesman for Gen. McPeak, said 
     yesterday the general was out of the Pentagon and not 
     available for comment. Col. McCoy said he was told Gen. 
     Fischer asked to retire last June.
       At the time Gen. Fischer was seeking an extension, Gen. 
     Glosson, the deputy chief of staff for plans and operations, 
     was advising Gen. McPeak to reject the request. The 
     discussions occurred before Gen. Glosson was placed under 
     investigation.
       Gen. Glosson's advice to Gen. McPeak became well known 
     among senior Air Force officers, possibly including Gen. 
     Fischer.
       During the course of the investigation last October, Gen. 
     Fischer telephoned four-star generals, told them his version 
     of the case and asked their opinion of Gen. Glosson's 
     veracity.
       Pentagon officials say his actions violated the probe's 
     confidentiality. The calls also opened it to outside 
     influence by senior generals who did not know all the facts 
     and who may have had reason to scuttle Gen. Glosson's career.
       ``I think he called all the four-stars in the Air Force,'' 
     said a senior Pentagon official.
       Asked about The Times' findings, Gen. Glosson's attorney, 
     Charles Gittins, said yesterday: ``If true, these issues are 
     matters of grave concern to Gen. Glosson because they call 
     into question the integrity of the IG system. Nonetheless, 
     Gen. Glosson has full confidence that upon review of the 
     investigation, the Senate Armed Services Committee will agree 
     he engaged in no improper conduct.''
       Messages left with Gen. Fischer's home answering service 
     were not returned yesterday.
       In February 1993, Gen. Fischer was attending a symposium 
     for generals called ``Corona'' at Eglin when the sexual 
     harassment incident reportedly occurred.
       He was accused of making an unwanted sexual advance to a 
     female captain, who filed a report saying the three-star 
     general kissed her on the mouth.
       ``She just felt uncomfortable,'' said a senior Pentagon 
     official. ``She felt he was a general and, at her grade, it 
     should be reported to superiors.''
       The Air Force handled the complaint by calling in a three-
     star Air Force general stationed outside the Pentagon to 
     investigate.
       His findings were inconclusive, in that the captain's 
     accusation was initially denied by Gen. Fischer.
       Nonetheless, Gen. McPeak asked Gen. Fischer to retire last 
     summer, but then extended the deadline to November, according 
     to Pentagon and Air Force officials.
       Later, according to two knowledgeable sources, Gen. Fischer 
     recanted his earlier statement shortly before he left the 
     service and admitted making a sexual advance to the captain.
       In October, three generals on a major-general promotion 
     board reported that Gen. Glosson contacted them and 
     criticized the credentials of a brigadier general up for two-
     star rank.
       An investigation was ordered and, sources said, several 
     senior officers recommended to Air Force Secretary Sheila 
     Widnall that a retired general be brought in to investigate 
     Gen. Glosson.
       While some officers were trying to have Gen. Fischer kept 
     out of the probe, Gen. Fischer and the Defense Department 
     inspector general reached agreement on jointly investigating 
     Gen Glosson.
       In October, Gen. Fischer and the Defense Department IG 
     found that Gen. Glosson tampered in the promotion process. In 
     a more serious charge, the IGs said he lied to investigators 
     about his communication with board members.
       Gen. Glosson and witnesses on his behalf said he was 
     unaware the three generals sat on the confidential board. 
     They also said the three board members misconstrued his 
     remarks. Gen. Glosson denied lying.
       During the probe, Gen. Fischer telephoned four-star 
     officers seeking advice.
       Gen. Charles Horner, commander of Air Force Space Command, 
     said in an interview that Gen. Fisher telephoned him on a 
     Saturday morning at his home and asked his opinion about the 
     case.
       ``I said I had confidence in the veracity of all four 
     officers,'' Gen. Horner said, referring to Gen. Glosson and 
     the three board members.
       Gen. Horner said he believes that if Gen. Fischer wanted 
     opinions from four-star officers outside the probe he should 
     have taken sworn testimony.
       When Mrs. Widnall received the IG's report, she could have 
     sought a court-martial on the charge of lying. But instead, 
     she involved a relatively mild punishment, issuing a letter 
     of admonition.
       The letter, however, ended Gen. Glosson's chances for 
     promotion and he filed for early retirement. The White House 
     nominated him to retire at full rank.
       The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to hold a hearing 
     on his retirement next month.
       Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, plans to fight 
     Gen. Glosson's three-star retirement once the issue reaches 
     the Senate floor for a vote.

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, how did the committee come to this 
conclusion? I have been on the Armed Services Committee for 6 years. I 
have never seen us be more thorough in looking into a matter, having 
hearings on it, discussing it with each other, bringing in the 
Secretary of the Air Force, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. We have 
talked to Secretary Perry. We have been very careful to look over the 
IG reports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator from South 
Carolina has expired.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield the Senator 30 more seconds.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  The Armed Services Committee even sent this issue back to the 
Pentagon about 2 months ago and said, ``Take another look at this, get 
outside people involved and analyze it all.'' They came back with 
information for us that I thought was very fair in its presentation, 
and the committee voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to 
support this general's retirement.
  The President, the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, the ranking member, we all believe that the fair 
thing, justice in this matter is to give General Glosson his 
retirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, as I see it, there are two issues here. If 
you believe that General Glosson lied, then I think you should vote 
against him. If I believe he lied, I would vote against him. I have 
known him for a long time. I have known him in a way that time after 
time he has been frank and candid on programs involving the Air Force 
when it would have been to his benefit to fudge the facts.
  The one thing Buster Glosson is, if anybody knows him, and all of his 
compatriots will tell you this, he is frank and candid, many times to 
his own detriment. So I do not believe he lied. But if someone does 
believe he lied, they ought to vote against him. We should not have 
three stars on an officer who lied. I do not believe that is the case.
  The second question is, he made a mistake, there is no doubt about 
that. He talked to military officers that he either knew or should have 
known were on the promotion board. In my opinion, he probably did not 
know they were on the promotion board. He says he did not, and I 
believe him. But the odds are they could have been, therefore, he 
should not have talked to them about another officer in a derogatory 
way. That was a serious error.
  Now the question is, has he been punished enough? Madam President, 
this individual has been one of the most outstanding military officers 
we have had since World War II. He literally ran the air war in the 
Persian Gulf under General Horner and under General Schwarzkopf. He was 
responsible for the plans and the operations. There has been no more 
successful air campaign since World War II.
  Time after time, he risked his life in Vietnam. He received just 
about every medal you could get in Vietnam.
  The question is, has he been punished enough? What has happened to 
him is that he was slated to be one of two, three, or four people who 
would have been carefully considered to be Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force. Everybody knew that Buster was on a fast track because he had 
had an absolutely superb career. He lost that opportunity. He was 
retired 6 years before his term would have expired. In terms of his 
mandatory retirement, he basically has had publicity all over the Air 
Force Times, negative publicity. He has been embarrassed. He has been 
interrupted in his career.
  There could be no more severe punishment for General Glosson. I know 
that. That is the way he views it, the way his friends view it, the way 
his family views it. This man has been punished.
  This is not condoning what he has done. Our question is whether we 
take away a star and revert him to two stars when he earned three stars 
when he was on active duty. No one has deserved three stars more than 
General Glosson. The question is whether he retires now with two stars.
  In my view, he has been punished enough. If somebody wants to punish 
him more, they can do that. But by voting for him now, believe me, we 
are not condoning or winking or looking the other way at anything he 
has done. This is a question of matching an overall career versus the 
punishment he already suffered for what was a serious mistake.
  This was not a court-martial offense. This was an administrative 
offense. If it had been a court-martial offense, that would have been 
another situation. This is an administrative matter, but it was a 
serious mistake and the Senate will have to decide whether General 
Glosson has paid for that mistake. In my opinion, he has paid for the 
mistake. He earned those three stars. He has had an outstanding career. 
He has risked his life time after time after time for this country. He 
has done so without blinking. And now we have to decide whether that 
serious error at the end of his career basically wipes out the slate of 
what he has done for this country and for the U.S. Air Force.
  Madam President, I hope that the Senate will agree with the 
conclusion of the majority of our committee that General Glosson has 
had an outstanding career and has been punished enough for the mistake 
he made.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of LTG 
Buster Glosson to retire in grade. General Glosson has served our 
Nation with honor and distinction for 29 years. From the Vietnam war to 
operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Buster Glosson displayed the 
tenacity, courage and valor which are in our country's highest 
traditions. He is, in every way a hero. I appreciate all he has done 
for me and for my State of Kansas, but more importantly, I appreciate 
what he has done for the security of our Nation and to the freedoms we 
enjoy. A grateful nation owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I 
extend my best wishes to General Glosson and his family in his 
retirement, but I know that his service to our country does not end 
here. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
nomination and to join with we in thanking LTG Buster Glosson for the 
service he has given to our country.
  Mr. NUNN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield back any time remaining.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of LTG Buster C. Glosson to the grade of 
lieutenant general on the retired list pursuant to the provisions of 
title X, United States Code, section 1370.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Tennessee 
[Mr. Sasser], and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] are 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], 
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood], and the 
Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 327 Ex.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kohl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--30

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Craig
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bradley
     Burns
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Lautenberg
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Sasser
     Stevens
  So, the nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table, and the President will be notified 
immediately of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________