[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
TAILHOOK SCANDAL
(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks and include
extraneous matter.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Department long has had an
attitude of seeing no evil, hearing no evil and speaking no evil if it
is a high enough ranking official of one of the uniformed services. In
other words, shut your ears, turn off your brain and give them a bigger
pension.
Mr. Speaker, today there are some very brave men and women on the
other side of the Capitol who are bucking this tradition and saying
about Admiral Kelso that he really does not deserve that, that there
have been many investigations in the Navy that went afoul, that the
whole Tailhook issue was about 87 sexual assaults for which no one was
really held accountable.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about crime on this floor but we allow people to
ignore it on those who were in the military service, and they are
standing up and talking about that and talking about many other
incidents and breaking up the old boys' club that has gone on for much
too long.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can never hold other people accountable until
we hold those at the top accountable and I do not think anything is so
clear as it is that the Navy failed Admiral Kelso.
I include for the Record two editorials pertaining to this matter.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 14, 1994]
Two Stars Are Plenty
Navy Secretary John H. Dalton had it right the first time.
Last year he urged the removal of Adm. Frank B. Kelso 2d as
Chief of Naval Operations for failing to show proper
leadership during Tailhook '91--the infamous reunion of
aviators featuring a gantlet of drunken gropers that female
guests, among them 15 officers, were forced to run. This
week, however, Mr. Dalton joined Defense Secretary William
Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in asking that the Senate retire Admiral
Kelso at his four-star rank.
Two stars, which rank the admiral will automatically revert
to unless the Senate says otherwise, are enough.
Admiral Kelso agreed to step down early in exchange for a
tribute that would clear his name. Mr. Perry gave him that
tribute two months ago, and America got a good look at the
Navy at its brassiest. Now Secretaries Dalton and Perry and
General Shalikashvili are polishing that brass to an
inappropriately higher shine. The general at least conceded
that his support was ``likely to fuel charges that we in the
services are operating an old-boy network by trying to shield
Admiral Kelso from blame.'' Likely? How about ``certain''?
There is much illustrious about Admiral Kelso's career. As
head of the Sixth Fleet, he commanded Navy forces that helped
seize the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the killing
of an American aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro. He was
also in charge of air strikes against Libya in 1986; and he
has been conspicuously progressive in his attitude toward
women's role in the Navy. True, his initiatives may have been
designed partly to sweeten the aroma arising from Tailhook.
Yet his concern with giving military women a fair chance was
commendable and rate.
Even so, allowing Admiral Kelso to keep his four stars, and
the pension that goes with them, would require the Senate to
dismiss--as his three advocates have done--the findings of
the Navy's own judge, Capt. William T. Vest Jr. Captain Vest
concluded that the admiral had lied about his own activities
at Tailhook '91, and then used his rank to impede the
investigations.
And if the captain's 111-page report is the last word on
the subject, it is because Admiral Kelso's retirement ends
any review of his conduct, and because Mr. Perry's coerced
tribute curtailed the formation of a special court of
inquiry.
In claiming that he had always supported retiring Admiral
Kelso with four stars, Secretary Dalton is willfully
overlooking one of the armed services' first principles:
Command responsibility belongs at the top. Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison was less myopic: ``[Admiral Kelso's] character is
not the issue here. The issue is his captaincy of the ship--
what happened on his watch--and the signal his performance
sends to the Navy and to the world.''
Should Admiral Kelso keep his four stars, the signal sent
to the Navy is that admirals and such can get away with what
lower-ranking officers cannot. The signal sent to the world
is that the American military's old-boy network is, despite
the general's disclaimer, operating at full tilt.
____
[From the New York Times, Apr. 18, 1994]
Command Presents
So now the Senate Armed Services Committee has joined the
old boys' network that protects the top military brass from
accountability. It recommended last week that Adm. Frank B.
Kelso 2d, the chief of Naval Operations, retire at the rank
of four stars as his predecessors traditionally have.
The full Senate ought to reject the committee's decision as
one based on sympathy rather than a fair assessment of the
admiral's performance. The senators should instead let his
rank revert automatically to two stars as it will unless they
take affirmative action to accommodate Admiral Kelso.
Without Senate approval, the admiral will be retired with
two stars and a $5,650-a-month pension, about $1,400 less
than four stars warrant. That seems a fair price to pay to
uphold the principle of command responsibility.
Admiral Kelso was, after all, the senior officer present at
the 1991 Tailhook Association convention, the reunion of
naval aviators in Las Vegas where female guests, including 15
fellow offices, were forced to run a gantlet of gropers. And
as Chief of Naval Operations, he was ultimately accountable
for the Navy's botched investigation.
Nevertheless the Armed Services Committee voted 20 to 2 in
favor of awarding him the higher rank and increased benefits.
The sole woman on the panel, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a
Texas Republican, did not agree. ``The issue,'' she said,
``is his captaincy of the ship--what happened on his watch--
and the signal his performance sends to the Navy and the
world.''
Admiral Kelso served the country well for a long time, and
he did more than any of his predecessors to secure an equal
place for women in the Navy. But Admiral Kelso's actions in
the Tailhook scandal were his undoing. His 38 years of
service surely acquainted him with the tradition of drunken
debauchery at Tailhook get-togethers. He should have been
sensitive to what his presence would mean to servicemen and
servicewomen.
A report by the Defense Department Inspector General
exonerated Admiral Kelso of any wrongdoing in the Tailhook
affair. But a Navy judge accused him of lying when he denied
he had witnessed any misconduct there and charged that he
used his rank to impede the investigation into tailhook.
Admiral Kelso short-circuited any review of his conduct by
agreeing to retire early in exchange for a testimonial
clearing his name.
Now the Armed Services Committee wants to reward him with
the rank and perks customarily voted for departing service
chiefs. The committee took the unusual step of inviting
Defense Secretary William Perry, Navy Secretary John Dalton
and Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to provide political cover by testifying in Admiral
Kelso's behalf.
With its vote, the committee showed that it was more
concerned with keeping the officer corps happy than with
sending a message about sexism. Senator Charles Robb
obligingly underscored their weak-kneed performance by
speaking nonsense. ``No one ought to be of the impression
that this committee or the Senate condones the conduct of the
charges investigated or is being insensitive about sexual
harassment.''
The issue goes beyond the events of Tailhook and the
treatment of women. The system of military justice must not
be seen by enlisted personnel and junior officers as going
soft when it comes time to hold the top brass accountable.
The military merarchy depends on a code of loyalty up and
loyalty down. That loyalty withers when lower ranks, where
the rules are strict and the administrative and court martial
punishments can be very harsh, see higher-ups rewarded for
failure.
To senators who are adept at taking credit and avoiding
blame, command responsibility can seem like an excessively
harsh discipline. But the moral and good order of the armed
services will suffer if commanders are allowed to escape
responsibility for major scandals that occur virtually under
their noses.
____________________