[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5562-S5563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HOLDS AGAINST MILITARY NOMINATIONS

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, before we recess to honor all veterans 
as we observe Memorial Day, I would like to bring a situation, which I 
find extremely egregious, to the attention of my colleagues.
  Today there are 25 military nominations pending before the Senate. 
These general and flag officers have been on the Executive Calendar and 
available for confirmation by the Senate since Thursday May 2, 1996. 
Now, 3 weeks later, they are still not confirmed because one Senator 
has placed a hold on these nominations.
  I do not like anonymous holds for any reason. I can understand a 
Senator holding a political civilian nominee until a meeting can occur 
or an agreement can be reached on an issue related to the civilian 
nominee's duties. In these cases the civilian nominee and the agency 
would clearly understand who is holding the nomination and the 
circumstances under which they may reach accommodation. In my view, 
this type of hold is within the bounds of Senatorial privilege.
  Traditionally, military nominations have not been the subject of 
political holds. In the past, we have seen military nominations held 
for as long as a year. However, in these cases, the hold was not 
anonymous and the hold was imposed until an investigation of the 
activities of the nominee could be completed to the Senator's 
satisfaction. The 25 general and flag officers being held today are 
hostages, I believe, to a political debate which is totally unrelated 
to the qualifications or assignments of the nominees.
  Let me review for my colleagues a few of the nominations which are 
being held. In the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Richard Myers has been nominated 
for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as the 
assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Air Force Lt. 
Gen. John Jumper has been nominated for reappointment to lieutenant 
general and for assignment as Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and 
Operations for the Air Force; Lt. Gen. Ralph Eberhart has been 
nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as 
Commander, U.S. Forces, Japan; Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman has been 
nominated for reappointment to lieutenant general and for assignment as 
the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy. Mr. President, these 
are not all of the 35 senior military officers currently under an 
anonymous hold, but they represent a sample of the effect of this hold.
  Why would a Senator deny the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff his 
key assistant, the person who travels with the Secretary of State 
representing the Chairman in critical foreign policy discussions? Why 
would a Senator hold an officer selected for assignment as the plans 
and operations officer for the entire U.S. Air Force. We all understand 
the global commitments of the Air Force. Why would a Senator deny the 
chief of staff of the Air Force the ability to fill this very critical 
billet? Why would a Senator deny our U.S. Forces in Japan a commander 
or the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy their Superintendent? Is 
there any political agenda so worthy as to merit such action? I think 
not.
  Mr. President, I abhor this tactic of holding military nominations 
hostage. I assure my colleagues this is not the way to force me or 
Senator Nunn to capitulate on a political issue. I strongly believe 
also that the Department of Defense should not make concessions while 
military nominees are held. We cannot allow military nominations to 
become bargaining chips in political disagreements, for local defense 
contracts or approval of military construction projects. Military 
personnel are selected for promotion and nominated by the President 
based on their performance and potential for greater service. These are 
merit based actions not political decisions. As chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, I will do everything possible to keep politics out 
of the military promotion process.
  I urge the Senator who has placed a hold on the military nominations 
to release them and permit the Senate to confirm these key military 
leaders so they can continue to serve their country and perform the 
business of national security.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to 
discuss the current hold that has been placed on military nominations 
that are pending on the Senate Calendar.
  There are today 25 military nominations pending before the Senate. 
These are nominations for promotion or appointment of men and women to 
the flag and general officer grades in each of the military 
departments. These are people who have each performed in the service of 
our country with great distinction for over 20 years. They are 
individuals who will continue to serve at the highest leadership levels 
in our military.
  Some examples of the kinds of nominations that are pending include 
the appointment of the next Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Japan; the 
appointment of the next Commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces; 
the appointment of the next Superintendent of the U.S. Military 
Academy; and the promotion of 19 officers in the Navy to the grade of 
rear admiral.
  Each appointment and promotion list has been considered by the Armed 
Services Committee and the committee has favorably reported each 
nomination to the Senate recommending confirmation. Some of these 
nominations were reported to the Senate on May 2; others on May 14. 
Although some of these nominations have been pending for 3 weeks, the 
Senate is not acting on them because they have been put on hold by one 
Senator.
  I want to be clear here that I do not object to the long-standing 
Senate practice that permits a Senator to hold a nomination when there 
is a problem with a nomination. Even this should only be done when 
there is sufficient cause. This is certainly not what is happening 
here.
  I strongly object to the tactic of putting a hold on military 
nominations in order to gain leverage on an issue that is totally 
unrelated to either the nominees themselves or the positions for which 
they have been nominated. This is the announced purpose of the 
Senator's hold.
  The Senate has had a strong tradition of not involving our military 
nominees in the politics of the Nation or in the politics of the 
Senate. That tradition is being ignored here and I think it is wrong.
  There may be some that say that the holding up the nominations of men 
and women in uniform is an appropriate way of getting the attention of 
the Department of Defense. In my judgment, it is inappropriate and I 
would recommend the Pentagon leadership not react to this type of 
blackmail because, once they do, all military nominations would be at 
risk.
  And anyone that thinks it is appropriate to use military 
servicemembers as a bargaining chip for whatever reason does a 
tremendous disservice to those brave men and women who volunteer to 
serve our Nation in uniform and it does a tremendous disservce to this 
institution.
  How do you tell a patriot who has served almost half his or her life 
in uniform, frequently in harms way, that they are not being confirmed 
for promotion because a United States Senator wants to get the 
attention of someone in the administration?

  We are talking here about people nominated to hold the positions of 
the highest responsibility in our military services at a time when that 
military is committed in harms way around the globe.
  Additionally, the unnecessary delay of military nominations has some 
very real consequences for the individuals and their families that I 
want to mention.
  The spring and early summer months are traditionally the periods of 
the highest turnover for military personnel. Every effort is made to 
effect transfers during the summer months in order to cause as little 
disruption to families during the school year.

[[Page S5563]]

  The reassignment of a senior military officer upon Senate 
confirmation is often the lynchpin of a series of reassignments that 
moves like a ``daiseychain'' down through the ranks.
  Accompanying one 3-star appointment can be a series of nine or ten 
other moves. So, unnecessarily delaying confirmation has a tremendous 
effect on a number of officers--and their families--far removed from 
the nominee. These families have to plan their moves, their travel and 
leave time. They can not move until the individual at the top moves. 
And the individuals at the top can not move until they are confirmed. 
One reason for this is that the Senate does not want nominees to take 
any actions that presume the outcome of the confirmation process.
  Additionally, it is important to note that some of the military 
nominees pending before the Senate could be promoted immediately if 
they were confirmed. Therefore, holding up their confirmation is 
actually taking money out of the pockets of these officers. Surely, we 
do not want to require a military officer to pay literally for a 
political disagreement in which he or she has no part.
  If a Senator need to get someone's attention; if one Senate committee 
needs to work out some difference with another Senate committee; if 
someone needs to gain support for a legislative proposal; there are 
ways to do this without placing the military service members in the 
middle and adversely affecting them and their families.
  Each day we ask these men and women to make tremendous sacrifices for 
our Nation. Sacrifices that no one in any other walk of life is asked 
to make. These men and women have earned the promotions and 
appointments for which they have been nominated. We do them a 
disservice when the confirmation process is used as a tactic to gain 
advantage in the Senate or in other circles.
  Mr. President. I ask my colleagues to understand the effect that 
holding military nominations has on the men and women caught in the 
middle and to refrain using military nominations as hostages. I would 
hope that the Senator will release his hold so these nominees can be 
confirmed prior to the Memorial Day recess.

                          ____________________