[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]

 
                               AIR FORCE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report executive calendar 
number 1281.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The nomination of Col. Claude M. Bolton, Jr. to be 
     Brigadier General.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the nomination?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the nomination.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the large 
number of people that voted against the promotion of General Glosson. 
As I said so many times, I have been, over the last year, spending a 
great deal of time studying various reports, particularly those of the 
inspectors general, to bring the public's attention and this body's 
attention to things that are wrong in the Defense Department--maybe not 
worse than other bureaucracies, but I have been concentrating on the 
Defense Department--in an effort to bring some accountability to an 
accountability of the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, better 
management by people who are responsible to carry out their duties 
according to their responsibility, and if they are not responsible, to 
hold them accountable.
  I think with the waste of taxpayers' money, these next two 
nominations are perfect examples of people who should be held 
responsible. In the case of the Glosson nomination, it dealt with the 
responsibility and accountability, not necessarily on the expenditure, 
of taxpayers' money. I have a long case to lay out in both the Barry 
nomination and the Bolton nomination. But I have been discussing, at 
least in the case of Colonel Bolton, some followup that has been 
suggested to me by staff of the Armed Services Committee that appears 
to be a reasonable approach to fixing responsibility.
  In the case of Colonel Bolton and the waste of $300 million of the 
taxpayers' money, and 60 cruise missiles laying on the floor of a 
production plant in California, and some possible violations of the 
Antideficiency Act, and with Colonel Bolton being the program manager, 
I think we should pinpoint responsibility.
  The Senator from Georgia says that it should not be pinpointed toward 
Colonel Bolton. Well, then where should it be pinpointed?
  So I have suggested to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
that if he, in his capacity--and certainly in the oversight powers and 
responsibilities of his committee--would, through correspondence, 
request of the inspector general--the committee has already followed up 
on the mismanagement of the program, there is no doubt about that. They 
have done a good job in that regard. But we need to pinpoint 
responsibility. Somebody has to be held responsible. It seems to me 
that if the committee is willing to do that, there would not be any 
reason for us to have a vote on the Colonel Bolton nomination, and we 
would move forward then to the Barry nomination.
  I will discuss that in a minute, after the results of this discussion 
with the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. If we 
decide we are not going to have to have a vote on Bolton, I would then 
still lay out my case sometime when it is not going to interfere with 
the work of the Senate. I will stay around to do that.
  I yield to the Senator for comment, or whatever he can say at this 
point.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I will follow 
his request, and I will join with Senator Thurmond, assuming Senator 
Thurmond will concur; I have not had a chance to talk to him about 
this. I believe that instead of writing the IG of the Air Force, it 
would be more appropriate to write the top official in charge of 
acquisition, Mr. Komiskey, who is an expert in this area. He is at the 
DOD level and can review it there, rather than at the Air Force level. 
I will work with the Senator on that. We will ask him to trace the 
history of this advance cruise missile program and ask him to assess 
the things that went wrong, and we will ask him to also assess the 
responsibility for those things that went wrong.
  I have to say, as I said last night, that Colonel Bolton did not take 
over the management of this program until 1989. The program was started 
in the Carter administration--at the end of it--under the team there 
then, and Bill Perry was one of those people. It was developed during 
the whole Reagan administration. It was a revolutionary technology 
program involving stealthy characteristics. The program, as many other 
revolutionary technology programs, ran into overruns and difficulties. 
The numbers of missiles came down. As the numbers come down, the price 
goes up. That is what happened. After you wind down a 40-year cold war, 
you reduce the numbers dramatically, and instead of building a thousand 
of something, you build a hundred of something, and the price goes up. 
So that is one of the big problems.
  But on Colonel Bolton himself, there is no evidence that he did 
anything wrong. He took over a program that was already having serious 
problems. It turned out to be a successful program overall, because it 
produced a very successful defense capability. But in the process of 
developing that revolutionary technology, there were cost overruns and 
technical problems.
  The question is, Who is accountable? I am not going to say to the 
Senator from Iowa that we are going to get an answer that tells you 
exactly who should be taken out and flogged in a 12-year program of 
this nature. But I will do my dead level best, and I will work with 
Senator Thurmond to frame a letter and work with the Senator from Iowa 
and his staff to frame a letter that would direct the questions at the 
appropriate people at the DOD level.
  If the Senator wants the Air Force level, we can do that, but it is 
hard for them to look at their own program. Most of these decisions 
where made by the Secretary of the Air Force, and there were two or 
three different ones. They are all gone now. So once you assess the 
accountability, Congress does not have any power to bring them back and 
flog them, or do anything to them. I am not sure we are going to 
satisfy the Senator's obvious desire to see someone punished. But I 
will certainly write that letter, and I will certainly get him the 
information in good faith, and I will followthrough and get as much 
information as we can about what went wrong and who is responsible for 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, that is satisfactory as long as we have 
the Department of Defense inspector general involved in the process, 
because of the independent status of the inspector general to make sure 
that we have an independent person making a judgment and also because 
the DOD inspector general in 1991, 2 years after the Senator said that 
Colonel Bolton took over, said that there was a violation of the Anti-
Deficiency Act. That is the Department of Defense inspector general 2 
years after Colonel Bolton became program manager.
  That is where responsibility to me is fixed.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator on that point 
there is a dispute about whether there was an Anti-Deficiency Act 
violation. The Senator is correct in that I said that. That decision 
was not made by Colonel Bolton. That was referred by Colonel Bolton to 
his superior, and it went to the Secretary of the Air Force. That 
decision on how to fund that program was made by the Secretary of the 
Air Force, now retired.
  There is no doubt about the fact there was a dispute between the 
Department of Defense IG and the Department of the Air Force on that. 
There is no doubt about the fact that Colonel Bolton did what he should 
have done on that, referred it up the line, and he got his orders from 
the Secretary of the Air Force.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me ask the question: Would the 
Senator from Georgia be willing to include the DOD IG?
  Mr. NUNN. I am glad to do that. If he prefers the DOD IG I am glad to 
do that.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have one more comment before I ask two more 
questions. Then I think we are done on this point.
  First, I think it is a sad commentary that we have a system of 
acquisitions that, using the Senator's word, we cannot take someone to 
take out and flog. I am not suggesting we flog someone. But is it not a 
terrible system that we cannot pinpoint responsibility? And to me that 
is a major problem.
  I know the Senator has been working for 5 years to get acquisition 
reform and all that, and the Senator may have a lot of things in place 
so that this will not be repeated down the road. But it seems to me 
that there has to be a constant vigil to make sure that we can pinpoint 
responsibility or else we are not going to have accountability. We are 
not going to have proper expenditures of money.
  On the last point, I would only, if I could, through you, Mr. 
President, ask my friend from South Carolina, who has listened to this 
entirely, would he join Senator Nunn in making this request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have heard the discussion, and I think 
what has been said here is proper. I will be glad to join in with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee on this and the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. OK.
  Then, Mr. President, I would not request a vote on Colonel Bolton.
  At the same time, I will say this: I am going to make a case on 
General Barry. I will not request a vote on General Barry, and if the 
floor leader with his power wants to vitiate the cloture vote, then he 
will have my assent.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for his 
comments and cooperation.
  Do I understand correctly now just so there can be no 
misunderstanding that the Senator is prepared to not have a vote on 
either the Bolton or the Barry nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And no cloture will be necessary.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Cloture will not be necessary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. But I do want time to speak.
  Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator will have as much time as he wishes.
  So, again, I want it understood, that there will be no cloture vote; 
there will be no rollcall vote at all on either nomination.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MITCHELL. They will be approved by voice vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. So there is no misunderstanding.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.


                   order to vitiate the cloture votes

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
votes now scheduled on the Bolton and Barry nominations be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Accordingly, Mr. President, in view of the statement by 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa for which I thank him, it is my 
understanding now that these two nominations will be approved by voice 
vote, no rollcall vote will be necessary on them; therefore, there will 
be no further rollcall votes.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. He is 
conscientious on these matters. He looks at them in detail. We do need 
careful oversight of the procurement system. In fact, we need careful 
oversight of every facet of Government, not just the Department of 
Defense now that we are in a different era. I can say we were a long 
time in the cold war era. There was almost a compulsion to push the 
edge of the envelope in terms of technology, and many times in pushing 
the edge of the envelope programs developed technical flaws. And 
without any doubt our system of procurement produced the best systems 
in the world, but many times it did so at a very high cost, and many 
times there was a lot of inefficiency.
  I believe that the new procurement system, which got no attention, I 
must say, in this Congress, and I read all the critics about nothing 
accomplished in this Congress. Of course, we did bog down on some items 
at the end. I have no doubt about that.
  But one of the major achievements of this Congress took 5 years to 
produce and was produced with the cooperation from both the legislative 
and executive branches, Democrats and Republicans. One of the major 
achievements had been the overhaul of the acquisition system. It should 
be a much better system. But it is going to take 5 to 10 years to 
implement.
  We should have a much better procurement system as one of the major 
accomplishments, in my view, of this Congress and really one of the 
major accomplishments in the last 15 or 20 years in the Department of 
Defense.
  We will work with the Senator from Iowa on these matters, and I 
commend him for making this decision and allowing these two officers to 
be confirmed, one of them retired and one of them promoted, because the 
committee unanimously decided that though they were in troubled 
programs they themselves handled themselves superbly and they bore no 
part of the responsibility in terms of the program problems, that they 
did what they should have done and when they should have done it. That 
was the committee judgment by unanimous view.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for his cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to not only thank the chairman of 
the Committee of Armed Services for his remarks now but I want to thank 
him and Senator Thurmond for their cooperation on this last effort.
  Also I want to say that over a long period of time, now probably 15 
months, I have been working with either Senator Nunn and/or his 
committee on my interest in these nominations and the whole subject of 
accountability, including several amendments on which he cooperated 
with me getting on various Armed Services Committees.
  I thank him for not only his cooperation but he in every respect was 
a gentleman as he had to deal with me, and I do not suppose it is 
always easy to deal with.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, if I could say one more word, I thank the Senator from 
Iowa. He has my pledge to continue to work with him on whatever 
questions he has.
  Mr. President, I want to just make one point. I am going to make a 
more lengthy presentation about the role George Mitchell, our majority 
leader, played here during his career in the Senate and particularly 
majority leader.
  I think it ought to be noted on at least the closing part of this 
session. We will come back in a few days in November on the trade bill, 
and I will make my lengthy remarks then. But Senator Mitchell cares 
about fairness and justice.
  Just a moment ago this nomination was about to go through. He favored 
the nomination. Senator Grassley and I were having a conversation. He 
came over to alert Senator Grassley to make sure it did not go through 
without his knowing about it.
  That is the kind of a majority leader we have. That is the reason he 
has the reputation for fairness, and I think we ought to all note that.
  The other thing I want to note, in the closing moments of this 
session, is that the majority leader could have pulled the plug on all 
three of these nominations. Everyone knows people are ready to get out 
of town. He cares about fairness to the individuals involved. He cared 
enough to schedule all three of these and to make sure that they were 
dealt with one way or the other by the U.S. Senate.
  So George Mitchell has many attributes, but I think in these closing 
moments we ought to note that kind of leadership, and it will be sorely 
missed. He will be very difficult to replace, and we all know that.
  So I thank the majority leader. I thank the Senator from Iowa. And I 
thank my colleague from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
able Senator from Iowa and the fair manner in which he has handled this 
matter. It was a delicate matter, and I am very pleased it has been 
handled as it has been done in a satisfactory manner.
  These officers now will be approved and other steps will be taken to 
improve the process here.
  And I express my appreciation to the able chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee too for his part in helping to resolve this delicate 
situation. I think it has been handled in a very fine manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to start debating the 
nomination, but if there are people who wanted to speak, I would give 
deference to them if they want to get out of town.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President I have a statement, if the Senator would 
yield to me.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator.

                          ____________________