[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar item
No. 828, the nomination of Adm. Frank B. Kelso II.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The clerk will report the nomination.
navy
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Adm. Frank B. Kelso II,
U.S. Navy, to be placed on the retired list in the grade of admiral.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. Exon].
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the Senate has now before it President Clinton's
nomination of Adm. Frank B. Kelso II, U.S. Navy, to retire in grade as
a four-star admiral. That nomination was reported favorably by the
Armed Services Committee by a vote of 20-2.
Admiral Kelso is completing 38 years of distinguished service in the
U.S. Navy, of which 14 years have been as a flag officer and last 8 of
which have been in the four-star grade.
Over the last 9 years, Admiral Kelso has served as Commander, 6th
Fleet; as Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; and as Supreme
Allied Commander, Atlantic, in his NATO hat and Commander in Chief,
U.S. Atlantic Command in his U.S. hat.
When he served as Commander, 6th Fleet, forces under Admiral Kelso's
command forced down the aircraft carrying terrorists who murdered an
American citizen on board the Achille Lauro. In that position, Admiral
Kelso commanded the U.S. forces which responded to Libyan armed
aggression in the Gulf of Sidra and also commanded the joint air strike
on Libya itself in retaliation for Libyan terrorism against United
States servicemen in Germany.
When he served as Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Admiral
Kelso led the way in planning and executing the integration of women in
combat logistic force ships.
As the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Kelso has overseen a
fundamental shift for naval forces from global open ocean warfare to
joint and combined operations conducted from the sea in littoral
regions.
Also as the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Kelso has overseen the
admission of women to service in all ships not closed to them and
sought legislation that opens combat ships and aircraft to women. Women
are joining combatant ships today and the first woman combat pilot has
qualified aboard an aircraft carrier and many more are in the combat
aviation, particularly in the up-front pipeline.
Admiral Kelso has also established the standing committee on the
status of women in the Department of the Navy. During his tenure as the
Chief of Naval Personnel, for the first time in the history of the
Navy, women have become commanding officers of ships, aviation
squadrons, major naval stations, a naval base, and brigades at the
Naval Academy.
During Admiral Kelso's tenure as the Chief of Naval Operations, nine
women have been promoted to flag rank.
In the absence of Senator Nunn, the chairman of the committee, who
will be here a little bit later on, I would like to read into the
Record a letter that Senator Nunn received from the Women Officers'
Professional Association. The letter is dated April 14, 1994, to the
Honorable Sam Nunn, Chairman, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nunn. On behalf of the board of the Women
Officers' Professional Association (WOPA), I express our--
And this is underlined--
wholehearted support for Admiral Frank Kelso's well earned
right to retire at his present rank of full admiral.
Admiral Kelso should be congratulated for his leadership,
not criticized. He, more than any other person, changed the
Navy by eliminating the gender-based prejudices and
restrictions which previously limited the contribution of
Navy women. The world will learn from our example.
It is appalling that some people judge Admiral Kelso by whatever did
or did not happen at the 1991 Tailhook convention. The important lesson
of this terrible event is that it was Admiral Kelso, as Chief of Naval
Operations, who forced the Navy to change for the good. Because of it,
it will never happen again.
And then underlined:
We, the professional women of the Navy, are beyond
Tailhook.
The WOPA is a predominantly female organization of almost
400 commissioned and noncommissioned officers. We have seen
our members become part of the U.S.S. Eisenhower's ships
company, and report that the Navy is the only service with
multiple female flag officers.
Admiral Kelso will be remembered with much respect by the
Navy's women. Please do not dishonor him by a rank reduction.
Sincerely, Jayne Hornstein, Lieutenant Commander, USN,
Vice-President for Programs.
Mr. President, I ask that the letter I have just read be printed in
the Record in full at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, returning to what I think is critically
important that we judge, women have done very well under the leadership
of Frank Kelso. If you know Frank Kelso, as many of us do, you will
know that he is a straightforward individual. He speaks frankly and on
point, and he says time and time again what he thinks should be done
and the right manner for all of the people in the U.S. Navy.
I simply say to you, Mr. President, that if you do not know Frank
Kelso well, then you have missed meeting one of the finest men or women
that I think has ever served in the U.S. Navy.
We have had him on numerous occasions before the Senate Armed
Services Committee. I have never seen him other than absolutely
forthright, always honest, always up front, and even understanding when
I felt he was under unjust attack.
I certainly simply say that the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Kelso, put real teeth into the policy of zero tolerance of sexual
harassment by directing that all persons found guilty of one incident
of aggravated sexual harassment be automatically processed for
discharge. Repeat offenders where incidents are less serious are also
subject to mandatory processing for discharge. Thus far, 85 officers or
enlisted personnel have been removed from the Navy under this policy.
Mr. President, let us turn for a moment to what I am sure will be a
matter of some discussion on the floor of the Senate today. Of course,
that is the 1991 Tailhook Symposium, if that is the proper name for it.
Admiral Kelso attended the symposium. He determined that the issues
facing the Navy's aviation community, including the question of women
piloting combat aircraft, required that he find out firsthand the mood
of the aviation community. He testified under oath that he did not
witness any misconduct at the said symposium.
A military trial judge concluded that Admiral Kelso witnessed such
misconduct and, further, manipulated the investigative process to
shield himself and senior naval officers. The Department of Defense
Inspector General, whose investigation involved the interviews of
hundreds of witnesses and who reviewed the evidence introduced at the
trial, determined that there was no credible evidence that Admiral
Kelso had specific knowledge of the improper incidents and offenses
that took place at the Tailhook Symposium and there was no evidence
that Admiral Kelso sought to thwart the Navy's investigation into the
Tailhook matter.
Secretary of Defense William Perry, Secretary of the Navy John
Dalton, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili
each testified before the Armed Services Committee. I asked each and
every one of them to specifically respond to this question, because I
thought it was critically important as to whether or not the general
should be retired at the four-star rank. I remind you that these are
the people that are in control of our national defense: William Perry,
the Secretary of Defense; John Dalton, the Secretary of the Navy; and a
very distinguished officer, General Shalikashvili, whom we have come to
recognize and realize as on outstanding man.
I believe I asked the question of General Shalikashvili first, and
then I said, ``I would like the other two of you before us today to
answer also.'' The question was simple. It was straightforward. ``Do
you believe or, to put it more precisely, do you have any hesitation or
mental reservation whatsoever about whether or not Admiral Kelso saw or
was present at any improper activity at the Tailhook Symposium in Las
Vegas in 1991?'' Each one of those individuals, in whom we place great
respect, said no.
I do not know how the question could be asked any more directly than
this Senator did in that event. Somewhere along the line you have to
believe somebody. You have to believe in people that have stood the
test of time, not only in the service but in very important civilian
positions as we have now under President Clinton.
I would simply emphasize, Mr. President, that each one of these
individuals, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have conducted their own review of
the evidence that they had and determined that Admiral Kelso did not
personally witness improper conduct at Tailhook and did not--I
emphasize ``did not''-- manipulate the investigative process.
Of particular note, the trial judge concluded that Admiral Kelso, and
I quote: ``* * * received the separately maintained files containing
information describing the alleged failure of leadership and other
personal involvement of a number of flag officers, including his own
file.''
Let me emphasize that is what the trial judge said. And I expect that
the statements from the trial judge will be cited at some length in our
discussion on this matter today.
But the trial judge said, and I just quoted that, that Admiral Kelso
``* * * received the separately maintained files containing the
information describing * * *'' and so forth. However, both Secretary
Perry and Secretary Dalton testified on their personal knowledge that
the so-called flag files were under the custody of the Secretary of
Defense until they were turned over to Secretary Dalton or his general
counsel and that Admiral Kelso never had the authority nor the ability
to withhold these files from the Navy admiral who convened the trials
relating to Tailhook.
Mr. President, in conclusion on this part of my statement, I want to
say that I have known Admiral Kelso for a number of years. He has
testified before the Armed Services Committee and has worked closely
with us on that committee over the years. I personally consider him to
be an individual of the highest integrity, who is committed to the
elimination of prejudice, whether it be based on race, gender or
religion, in the U.S. Navy. I also believe that his performance over
the last 38 years of his career merit his retirement as a four-star
admiral, as recommended by the President of the United States, by the
Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary of the Navy, and by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Just for clarification at this time, Mr. President, because I am sure
we will be discussing this at some length, under the retirement rules
of the military services, particularly now talking about the Navy--the
same general rules apply to the other branches of the service, as
well--when you get two stars and the salary that goes with two stars,
that is where the monthly retirement is set. And as you go to receive a
third star or a fourth star, as has been commonplace over the years,
those last two stars, the third star and the fourth star, are temporary
ranks. And when you retire, unless by action and recommendation of the
President and confirmation or agreement by the Congress, you revert
back to the two-star rank, as far as retirement compensation is
concerned.
I do not believe that there has ever been a three- or a four-star
flag officer, or officer who has retired, who has ever been denied that
request when made by the President of the United States. I hope this
will not be the first time because, if so, I think a grave injustice
will take place.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Women Officers'
Professional Association,
April 14, 1994.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Nunn: On behalf of the board of the Women
Officers Professional Association (WOPA), I express our
wholehearted support for Admiral Frank Kelso's well earned
right to retire at his present rank of full admiral.
Admiral Kelso should be congratulated for his leadership,
not criticized. He, more than any other person, changed the
Navy by eliminating the gender-based prejudices and
restrictions which previously limited the contributions of
Navy women. The world will learn from our example.
It is appalling that some people judge Admiral Kelso by
whatever did or did not happen at the 1991 Tailhook
convention. The important lesson of this terrible event is
that it was Admiral Kelso, as the Chief of Naval Operations,
who forced the Navy to change for the good. Because of it, it
will never happen again. We, the professional women of the
Navy, are beyond Tailhook.
The WOPA is a predominately female organization of almost
400 commissioned and noncommissioned officers. We have seen
our members become part of the USS EISENHOWER's ship's
company, and report that the Navy is the only service with
multiple female flag officers.
Admiral Kelso will be remembered with much respect by the
Navy's Women. Please do not dishonor him by a rank reduction.
Sincerely,
Jayne Hornstein,
Lieutenant Commander, USN, Vice President for Programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I rise today to take the position that Admiral Frank Kelso should be
retired at the rank of two stars. The question is what are we
considering on the floor today of the U.S. Senate? We will be debating
whether or not Admiral Kelso should retire as a four-star admiral
rather than a two-star admiral. Why does this take a vote by the U.S.
Senate?
Under current law, any admiral, regardless of what rank he or she
holds, three-star or four-star, is automatically retired at two stars
unless there is an affirmative action by the Senate to allow them to
retire at an additional star or two. Let me make it clear it is the
current law that an admiral automatically retires at two stars,
regardless of the rank he or she holds, unless there is an action taken
by the Senate to increase those stars.
To retire above the two-star level is meant to be an extraordinary
reward, not something to be routinely granted, not to rubberstamp
something advised by a Secretary of Defense or a Secretary of one of
the military organizations. It is meant to be an extraordinary reward
and something so special that the entire Senate must vote to give
advice and consent to such a reward.
My position is this: That two stars is enough for Admiral Frank
Kelso. I am not advocating that he be stripped of his rank, nor am I
advocating that he be demoted. What I am advocating is that he be
retired according to current law. I believe that he should not retire
at four stars and the pay that goes with it.
A lot of the arguments that I wish to make are best summarized in a
New York Times editorial of April 14.
Madam President, there is much to commend the Senate and the Nation
about the record of Admiral Frank Kelso. For 38 years, he has served in
the U.S. military. He is a graduate of the class of 1958 at the Naval
Academy.
Our distinguished colleague, Senator Exon, has detailed many of the
outstanding things that Admiral Kelso has done during those 38 years he
served in the Navy. Most recently, it was being in charge of the Navy
that supported General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm. He did play a
significant role in fighting the perpetrators of the Achille Lauro
incident. And it is true that he has also done many significant things
affecting women in the military from the standing committee on the
status of women in the Department of Navy to admitting women to service
on all ships not closed to them by law. We also know that he fought to
convince the Secretary of Defense that the Navy must open up combat
aviation and service aviation jobs to women.
There are many things he has done, as I said, for which we could
commend him.
So then why am I opposing a four-star retirement? Madam President, I
am opposing the two additional stars because of, No. 1, the Tailhook
matter; No. 2, the failure of leadership at all levels of the U.S. Navy
related to sexual harassment and sexual assault and scandal in general;
and No. 3, the unchanged culture of the Navy regarding these matters.
And I believe that if we do not take action to change the culture, as
well as the law and the rules, this type of activity that went on at
Tailhook and other forms of sexual harassment will happen again and
again and again.
The Tailhook matter is a sordid, sleazy stain on the U.S. Navy. All
are familiar with what happened there. During a 1991 convention, what
was supposed to be a convention of Navy aviators, there was a series of
actions that no one disputes in which several women were sexually
harassed, sexually battered, and sexually assaulted. It was a scene of
drunkenness, debauchery, vulgarity, and violence.
But what happened after the incident was made public is as much of a
problem as Tailhook itself. It was an all too familiar pattern that
happens in the Navy and happens in the U.S. military.
Let me tell you what the familiar pattern is. First, a victim comes
forth and declares what has happened. Then there is an outcry, followed
by an investigation, but a bungled investigation. There has been a
persistent pattern after every scandal that there is a bungled
investigation, characterized by mishandling, inept gathering of
information and evidence, so damaging the evidence that often further
prosecution is unable to go forward with any degree of credibility.
Even after the investigation is bungled, there is the coverup role,
often the coverup role of junior officers, and this is where that the
buddy system takes over from the honor system. It is the buddy system
that takes over from the code of conduct where junior officers lie and
conspire to protect their buddies.
Madam President, the honor system says this: That Naval officers do
not lie, cheat, or steal. But the buddy system says that does not count
if you are out to protect one of your own. And this is an all-too-
familiar pattern in the Navy. I believe in the military, in general. My
own experience as a member of the Board of Visitors at the Naval
Academy demonstrates that.
I was part of a committee to investigate sexual harassment at the
U.S. Naval Academy. A young midshipman by the name of Gwenn Dwyer was
chained to a latrine where she was then sexually harassed by a whole
group of midshipmen taunting, abusing her, and which no junior officer
or no one stepped in to protect her. And then, once again, that was
followed by a bungled investigation and the role of both the mid and
the junior officers to cover up to conspire and to make sure the buddy
system overrode this.
We see this pattern and culture all too often and, therefore, this
pattern and culture must change. It must change in matters affecting
sexual harassment, discrimination of any kind, or scandals of any kind.
And if it is to stop, it will only stop if there are consequences to
the behavior of the leadership at the top. It will not change if there
are no consequences associated to the behavior of the leadership in the
U.S. military and its organizations.
I believe right now the military believes that if you ride it out,
that if you hang tough and you hang low, all of it will blow over. All
you have to do is just bide your time and there will be no penalty or
no price paid for retirement or promotion. It will go on. And every
effort focused on instituting cultural change will be a failure unless
we show that there is a penalty to those at the top or those on their
way to the top either in their promotion or their retirement.
That is why I say two stars is enough for Admiral Kelso. He was the
Chief of Naval Operations. He was the Chief of all Naval Operations. To
give him four stars is a message that there is no penalty for Tailhook.
And if there is no penalty for Tailhook, there will never be a penalty
for anything like it.
There is much to dispute about what happened at Tailhook. There is
much that even disputes Admiral Kelso's role in Tailhook--what did he
know before; what did he know during? And it is also so disputed that
there is even confusion within the Navy itself. The Navy is confused
between a military judge's finding and two IG reports. We can look at
those, and others will speak to that.
But what is not disputed is the bungled investigation, the coverups,
and the buddy system over the honor system. That is what happened on
Kelso's watch and, therefore, he must take the responsibility, pay the
price, and send a message that there is no reward either in a pension,
a retirement, or a promotion.
Now there are those who would say, ``Judge Admiral Kelso by his
entire record, not by this single, scandalous matter.''
I would like to do that. However, it is not only Admiral Kelso that
is being judged, but the entire U.S. Navy and the military.
Regrettably, it falls on the shoulders of Frank Kelso.
When we say two stars is enough, we know--the women of the Senate and
those men who support us know--that this will trigger an outrage among
naval officers currently holding office and those in retirement. We
anticipate that maybe even the veterans' organizations are going to be
volcanic in their reaction.
However, know this: It is not the women of the Senate who should be
blamed for this. It is not the Senate or the women of the Senate and
the men who support us who are pulling Admiral Kelso down. It is the
U.S. Navy that let Frank Kelso down. It is the U.S. Navy and the men
who served under Kelso that torpedoed the career of Frank Kelso by
bungling the investigation and by this buddy system over the honor
system. It was the Navy who did this and, therefore, it is they who
should bear their responsibility. And they must take the responsibility
for changing the culture.
For those who are outraged at the Senate for speaking up, they are
outraged at the wrong people. For those who will be outraged by us
daring to challenge this promotion, they themselves should be outraged
that Tailhook ever happened. They should be outraged over bungled
investigations. They should be outraged over the buddy system, over the
honor system.
It is they, those who often will now attack us, who should call for
the restoration of the honor system and the code of conduct. For too
often, when there are issues of sexual harassment or sexual assault,
there is a pattern of blaming the victim or those of us who defend the
victim.
This is not only an issue about women. Men must also speak up. I said
this at the conclusion of the Anita Hill hearings. After we had gone
through the intense hearings and debate on Anita Hill, I said this:
I call upon the men of the United States of America now to
speak out on the issue of sexual harassment. This is not a
women's issue. It is an issue that profoundly affects men and
women and I call upon the men to claim the power that they
have in order to speak out and speak up, to be able to speak
up about this issue. I call upon the men to speak out in the
workplace, to speak out in newspapers, to speak out in talk
shows, to speak out in the gym the way they have spoken to
me. And I say if you speak out and you speak up, you may
prevent what has happened to your wife or to your daughter,
but you will help others everywhere.
I also said this to the women watching during that time. I said to
them: Do not lose heart, but we will lose ground.`` And we have lost
ground. Otherwise, we would not be debating this today.
I said this to the women:
I know how you feel the sting of this, how you feel
battered and bullied whenever you have been a victim of much
sexual harassment. Speak up to a friend. And if you are ever
harassed, take good notes. When you speak up, make sure you
are not alone, because there will be few there to protect
you.
And now we see that through the Military Code of Conduct.
Madam President, I feel very strongly about this. I want to conclude
that now we have an opportunity to send a message to victims
everywhere, but also to change the culture of the military by saying
two stars is enough.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, thank you very much.
I am very glad to see my colleagues here from the House of
Representatives. I had the distinct privilege of serving with many of
them and, as a matter of fact, I made a walk over from the House on
another matter, that is very close to the one they just made.
I want to say in particular that the leadership of Congresswoman Pat
Schroeder is going to go down in history on issues of sexual harassment
and sexual assault in the military. It swells my heart with pride to
see her here.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Boxer, I too wish to acknowledge the presence
of our colleagues from the House, many who serve on the Armed Services
Committee, and many who have stood with us on battles for social
justice and equal rights and dignity for all.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the issue before
us; that is, the vote to retire Adm. Frank Kelso at four stars. I think
he should retire with his pension intact at a two-star level.
I realize this is a highly unusual action for us to take. But, by the
presence of my female colleagues on both sides of the aisle and my
female colleagues from the House, I think the country will note that
the facts before us require us to take unusual action.
This is the first time that the seven women of the Senate have pulled
together across party lines. And I want to say that our unity should be
noticed. It is important.
Madam President, someone in the military must pay a tangible,
quantifiable price for Tailhook, and no one in the military has--except
those women who were sexually assaulted. Please note that I did not say
sexually harassed. I said sexually assaulted.
What was Tailhook?
Madam President, as you know, for 3 days in September 1991, the Las
Vegas Hilton was a haven for misconduct, where lewd and often criminal
behavior was either ignored or, worse, encouraged by officers of the
U.S. Navy.
At Tailhook '91, no place in the Las Vegas Hilton was safe. Women
were harassed and assaulted by the pool, in the hallways, in the hotel
casino, and in private rooms. The majority of the 80 assaults occurred
in the so-called gauntlet, a dimly lit hallway packed with junior
officers on the third floor. I want everybody to think about this
gauntlet as if they were walking down it, or their wife was walking
down that hall, or their sister or their aunt or their daughter was
walking down that hall.
As women approached the gauntlet, officers pretended to be merely
socializing in small groups. They would quiet down and create an
opening in the crowd so unsuspecting women might think there was a
clear passageway. But as women entered the gauntlet, they were
immediately surrounded by officers who then blocked their exit. Once
trapped, most victims were groped and many of them were bitten. All of
them were assaulted in some form.
In the interest of decency, Madam President, I will refrain from
entering the contents of the Department of Defense inspector general's
final report on Tailhook into the Record. However, because it is so
important for Senators to understand the seriousness of the offenses, I
will read carefully worded selections into the Record.
Victim No. 26 was walking through the third floor ``gauntlet'' when,
according to the inspecter general, ``suddenly men reached out grabbing
and groping * * * She screamed and covered herself with her arms.''
Victim No. 41 was also assaulted in the ``gauntlet.'' As she walked
into the crowd ``men began hooting and hollering at her. A group of men
surrounded her and began groping her body. Several men ran their hands
up her legs * * * and fondled her. * * * She attempted to defend
herself by striking out at them, but as she twisted and turned, another
group of men fondled her * * * from behind.''
Victim No. 50 was a lieutenant in the Navy. She testified that as she
walked through the third floor hallway a ``man * * * moved in
immediately behind me with his body pressed against mine. He was
bumping me, pushing me forward down the passageway where the group on
either side was pinching and pulling at my clothing. The man then put
both his hands down the front of my tanktop [and grabbed me]. I dropped
to a forward crouched position and placed my hands on the wrists of my
attacker''----
She did not say harasser. She said on the hands of my attacker. --
``on the wrists of my attacker, in an attempt to remove his hands. * *
* I sank my teeth into the fleshy part of the man's left forearm,
biting hard. I think I drew blood. * * * I then turned and bit the man
on the right hand at the area between the base of the thumb and the
base of the index finger. The man removed his hands, and another
individual reached up under my skirt and grabbed [me]. I kicked one of
my attackers. * * * I felt as though the group was trying to rape me.''
Not harass me, ``rape me.''
``I was terrified and had no idea what was going to happen next.''
Those are just three examples, I say to my colleagues. And I have
made them far more gentle than as they appeared in the inspector
general's report.
The DOD inspector general's report is filled with dozens of harrowing
accounts similar to the ones I have read. I say to my colleagues who
are listening in their offices, read these before voting and ask the
question: Who in the military paid a price for Tailhook? No one has, my
friends. No one except the victims. Oh, there has been embarrassment,
yes; a couple of letters of reprimands. Admiral Kelso is retiring 2
months early. No one in the military is paying a price but the people
who were hurt at Tailhook, the women who were hurt at Tailhook.
The first investigations conducted by the Naval Investigative Service
and then the Navy's IG were so botched, as Senator Mikulski stated so
clearly, that before he quit, civilian Secretary of the Navy Lawrence
Garrett called in the DOD inspector general.
The DOD inspector general's review of the previous investigations
revealed gross incompetence, if not outright coverup. Remember, the
Department of Defense inspector general took over the investigation
from the Navy because the Navy had botched it up so badly. The
Department of Defense inspector general criticized four of the five
officers responsible for the Navy's investigation of Tailhook. I will
put into the record his specific criticisms.
I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
VII. PERSONAL FAILURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
We believe that personal failures on the part of four of
the five management officials were largely responsible for
the inadequacy of the Navy investigative response to the
Tailhook matter.
A. The Under Secretary of the Navy
The Under Secretary failed to ensure that the Navy
conducted a comprehensive investigation.
B. The Commander, NIS
The Commander, NIS, demonstrated an attitude that should
have caused an examination of his suitability to conduct the
investigation.
C. The Navy JAG
The Navy JAG failed to ensure that the Navy investigations
fully addressed the issues, and he failed to remedy properly
a significant conflict of interest on the part of the Special
Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy for Legal and
Legislative Affairs.
D. The Naval IG
The Naval IG did not ensure that his reports would have an
adequate factual basis and made questionable referrals of
individuals to the chain of command for consideration of
disciplinary action.
Mrs. BOXER. The DOD inspector general reports that, during his
investigation, many naval officers systematically lied to hide the
truth. He called it collective stonewalling. It ``increased the
difficulty of the investigation,'' says the DOD IG, ``and adversely
affected [the DOD IG's] ability to identify many of those officers who
had committed assaults.''
That is in the record. This is not a group of women in the Congress
saying this may have happened. This is not a group of victims saying we
think this happened. This is the Department of Defense inspector
general who said it did happen and that the Navy people lied
systematically, to use his words.
In other words, the Navy coverup worked. And under whose watch?
Admiral Kelso's.
So, how were the women treated who came forward to tell what
happened? Let us talk about Lieutenant Paula Coughlin. She told her
immediate supervisor, a vice-admiral, of her experience in the
gauntlet. Do you know what he said? ``That's what you get when you go
to a hotel party with a bunch of drunk aviators.''
Blame the victim. It should not surprise anyone that just 2 months
ago Lieutenant Coughlin resigned her commission, citing continuing
harassment as the reason for cutting short her promising career.
Those on the other side say Admiral Kelso was wonderful at changing
the military, at changing the way they think about things. Then why did
Lieutenant Coughlin have to quit? She felt herself run out of the Navy.
This is what she wrote when she submitted her letter of resignation:
``The physical attack on me by the naval aviators at the Tailhook
Convention and the covert attacks on me that followed ``have stripped
me of my ability to serve.''
That is what she wrote in her letter of resignation. And if you
think, my friends, that the climate has changed since Tailhook--which
many of our colleagues have said--I want to tell you that it has not.
Congresswoman Schroeder has recently held hearings on this subject. She
heard from several witnesses, including a lawyer who was locked into
the mental ward because she complained of sexual harassment.
Madam President, justice has not been done in the Tailhook scandal.
The victims have been harmed, the guilty have not been punished; just
the opposite of what justice is supposed to be. Tailhook has been
justice turned on its head, and today we can set justice on her feet
again if we vote in the right fashion and keep the admiral at a two-
star level.
The Department of Defense IG found the following in his final report.
This is not Senator Boxer, this is not Senator Feinstein, this is not
Senator Murray, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Mikulski, nor is it Senator Kassebaum.
``What happened at Tailhook '91 was the culmination of a long-term
failure of leadership.''
``A long-term failure of leadership.'' And who, I ask, was the leader
of the Navy at that time, the CNO? Admiral Kelso, the highest ranking
officer in the Navy. He must shoulder the responsibility for that lack
of leadership. I say, if you have pride in the Navy, then you take the
heat for Tailhook.
It happened on Admiral Kelso's watch and, as my colleague, Senator
Mikulski, has stated, the minutes have ticked by and the months have
ticked by and the years have ticked by without a price being paid by
anyone in the military.
Tailhook was not a case of junior officers running amuck without
their superiors' knowledge. Admiral Kelso attended the Tailhook
convention, although he claims he witnessed no misconduct. I want to
put on the record that the DOD IG agrees that there is no evidence that
places Admiral Kelso at the scenes of the crimes. Several junior
officers and a prominent Navy judge disagree. I do not want to get into
whether or not he saw what was going on or he did not see what was
going on. I say it is not critical to the central point. I say that
even if Admiral Kelso did not personally witness the misconduct, I
believe Admiral Kelso knew what Tailhook was. I think if you were alive
and you were breathing and you were in the Navy at that time, you knew
what Tailhook was.
Way back in 1985, a Navy vice admiral wrote another senior officer
about the behavior he had seen.
Madam President, he wrote:
The general decorum and conduct last year was far less than
expected of mature naval officers. Certain observers even
described some of the activity in the hotel halls and suites
as grossly appalling, ``a rambunctious melee''. * * Heavy
drinking and other excesses were not only condoned, they were
encouraged. * * * We can ill-afford this type of behavior
and, indeed, we must not tolerate it.
That is what was written way back in 1985 by a Navy vice admiral who
wrote another senior officer. Can I believe that Admiral Kelso did not
know what happened at Tailhook? Organizers of Tailhook '91 knew of the
potential problems less than 1 month before the convention. On August
15, 3 weeks before the convention opened, the president of Tailhook
sent a shocking letter to all Tailhook representatives.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of that
letter in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Tailhook Association,
Bonita, CA,
August 15, 1991.
NFWS,
Nas Miramar, San Diego, CA.
Dear Tailhook Representative: Enclosed you will find a copy
of the floor plan and the location of your suite. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact Tailhook at our
toll free number 1-800-322-HOOK. Please be patient, our lines
are crazy this time of year.
This year we want to make sure everyone is aware of certain
problems we've had in past year's.
As last year, you will only be charged for damage inside
your suite. The Association will pay for common area damage.
In order to keep damage charges to a minimum inside your
suite, please make sure you check-in with someone from the
Association. You may do this by calling the Tailhook Suite
prior to moving into your suite. Our representative, a Hilton
representative from housekeeping, and you will go over your
suite prior to move-in. Please make sure you sign the form
our representative will have and retain a copy. On Sunday, 9
September we will again inspect the suites in the same
manner. Damage not listed on the check-in form will be the
squadron's responsibility. If you do not check-in with the
Association we will not be able to dispute any damage charges
made by the Hilton Hotel.
In past years we have had a problem with under age
participants. If you see someone who does not look like they
belong in our group, or look under age please ask for a ID.
If they are under age, or do not have ID, please ask them to
leave or contact Security. It is important that we try to
eliminate these under age of 21. If they were to leave the
hotel and cause an accident, hurting themselves or anyone
else, the Association, along with the squadron, the Navy, and
the Hilton could be sued and Tailhook would come to an end.
Please assist us in this matter.
Also, in the past we have a problem with late night ``gang
mentality.'' If you see this type of behavior going on,
please make an effort to curtail it either by saying
something, calling security or contacting someone from the
Association. We will have people on the floor in blue
committee shirts should you need them for any reason.
Tailhook will also have a flight surgeon aboard this year.
Should you, or anyone you know need a ``doc'', please call
the Tailhook Suite or make contact with a committee member.
Security will also have his beeper number.
Remember, when bringing in your suite supplies do so with
discretion. We are not allowed to bring certain articles into
the Hilton. Please cover your supplies by putting them in
parachute bags or boxes. Do not borrow laundry baskets from
the Hilton. Their sense of humor does not go that far!!!
Supplies may be purchased in town from ``WOW''. They have a
number of items that may be purchased or rented for your
suite. The lanai suites do not have wet bars. You will need
to set-up your own bar. The Hilton does not supply such
items.
We suggest you remove your telephones from your suites so
you are not paying for someone else's long distance calls.
This has happened in the past. Also, make sure the phones are
returned to the room. This is an item we have all forgotten
to check on our check-in/check-out inspection. Please look
for outlets in your suite by the beds and in the bathroom.
Almost all suites have a phone outlet in the bathroom. It is
very important that you check the bathroom for a phone or an
outlet and note it!
Please make sure your duty officers are SOBER and prepared
to handle any problems that may arise in your suite. It is
necessary for them to be willing to work with the Association
staff. We will make every effort to handle all problems.
Remember. . . . There Are To Be No ``Quick Hit'' Drinks
served. Lewd and Lascivious behavior is unacceptable. The
behavior in your suite reflects on both your squadron and
your commanding officer.
Have a great time. Thank you for your continued support of
the Tailhook Association. We look forward to seeing you in
Las Vegas.
Sincerely,
Frederic G. Ludwig, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Navy, President.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, he wrote in part:
* * * In the past we have had a problem with late night
``gang mentality.''
How many times have I heard my colleagues on this floor talk about
the evils of a gang mentality? Here it is admitted by the Navy that
that is what Tailhook was about. He wrote:
If you see this type of behavior, please make an effort to
curtail it * * *
This frank admission of gang mentality is absolutely astonishing. I
view it, frankly, as irrefutable evidence that high-ranking Navy
officers knew what had happened at past conventions and what could
happen in the future.
Madam President, how is it possible that this paper trail, not to
mention all of the word of mouth that circulated around the Pentagon
escaped the attention of Admiral Kelso?
Navy Judge William Vest does not believe it at all.
The DOD inspector general reached a similar conclusion:
Throughout our investigation, officers told us that
Tailhook 91 was not significantly different from earlier
conventions with respect to outrageous behavior. Most of the
officers we spoke to said excesses seen at Tailhook 91, such
as excessive consumption of alcohol, strippers, indecent
exposure and other inappropriate behavior were accepted by
senior officers, simply because those things had gone on for
years. Indeed, heavy drinking, the gauntlet, and widespread
promiscuity were part of the allure of Tailhook conventions
to a number of Navy and Tailhook attendees.
In summary, even if Admiral Kelso did not see what was occurring on
the now infamous third floor where most of the assaults took place, he
surely knew what Tailhook was about. It was not about good, clean fun
or mom or apple pie. It was not even about sexual harassment. It was
about disgusting, hostile aggressive sexual assault. The IG said that
Tailhook had a well-known ``can you top this'' atmosphere that
``appeared to increase with each succeeding Tailhook convention.''
Admiral Kelso chose to attend the Tailhook convention despite its
raunchy reputation. His appearance left the impression of official
condonation. Condonation. Had he refused the invitation to participate,
it would have conveyed the message of condemnation. Condone or condemn
Tailhook--that was Kelso's choice and he chose to condone.
Madam President, the failure of Admiral Kelso to exercise leadership
and prevent this sickening attack on women is absolutely inexcusable,
even put into the context of his other important activities, which my
colleagues, Senator Exon and Senator Mikulski have discussed.
Indeed, Admiral Kelso has much to be proud of. I thank him for those
contributions. The American people thank him for those contributions.
But for Tailhook, we should not thank him, nor should we reward him.
In summary--and I will close here, Madam President--First, Admiral
Kelso went to the Tailhook convention, known quite broadly in the Navy
for its history of inappropriate conduct. He should have known what
went on there. If he did not, then I say he was out of touch with his
own people. He condoned Tailhook by his presence there.
Second: the investigation by the Navy, under Admiral Kelso, was so
bungled that the DOD IG had to take it over. They had to walk away from
it and bring in a new team because the Navy bungled it.
Third: the only ones to pay a price for Tailhook in the military are
the women who were assaulted physically and mentally.
Fourth: the DOD inspector general found Tailhook 91 resulted--and I
am quoting them--from a long-term failure of leadership.
My friends, we are on the spot. What kind of message will we send
today? I say it should be a message of responsibility. We talk a great
game around here about responsibility. We talk about making sure our
children are responsible, parents are responsible, taxpayers are
responsible, businesses are responsible.
I will tell you, it is easy to blame the other guy, but it is a sign
of maturity not to do that. In the military, individual responsibility
is the key. I had the honor of serving on the Armed Services Committee
in the House for several years. The chain of command is clear. It is
clear where the buck stops, and that is at the top.
A series of dirty deeds occurred at Tailhook. People were eventually
scarred for life, and for that you do not give two additional stars and
$1,400 additional a month. For that you say, ``We're sorry, sir, but
the honorable thing to do is to walk away with your many good and fine
deeds, with your mistakes and with your two stars.''
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, the women elected to serve in
this body and in the House get it. We suggest to our colleagues that
business as usual is not good enough. We believe that sexual
misconduct, harassment, abuse, and assault in the military must stop,
and that refusal to promote Admiral Kelso for purposes of retirement is
a way to stop it.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking against the retirement
of Admiral Kelso at four stars and in this initiative.
What is at issue here is not Admiral Kelso's character. It is
unanimously agreed by the Armed Services Committee and by the top
levels of the military that Admiral Kelso is a fine, upstanding
gentleman. Nor at issue is Admiral Kelso's 38-year record in the Navy.
Secretary Dalton outlined the long distinguished career of Admiral
Kelso in his testimony before the committee.
The issue, Madam President, is not Admiral Kelso's commitment to the
U.S. Navy or to the people of this country. I would like to speak to
the issue of the Navy itself and Admiral Kelso's stewardship of the
Navy which, unfortunately, has had a very poor record of investigating
and disciplining itself.
The Tailhook convention of 1991 and the subsequent investigation, if
we can call it that, into the charges of what occurred there are
symptoms of a larger problem and of the need to reform the system of
justice in the Navy.
A string of inappropriate behavior and inexcusable conduct has been
recurring in the last few years in the Navy. Whether it was the Miramar
incident with Congresswoman Schroeder; the first report on the
explosion of the U.S.S. Iowa, which I recognize Admiral Kelso
overturned; the Tailhook convention of 1991; or, most recently, the
cheating scandals at the Naval Academy, this pattern underscores that
the leadership of the Navy is not doing what it should do to prevent
what is considered inappropriate behavior in or out of the armed
services. Nor is it properly addressing these incidents after the fact
and disciplining its members in such a way that everyone is put on
notice that such behavior will not be tolerated.
As Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Kelso set the tone for the
entire Navy. He is the captain, as it were, of the ship. Tailhook
occurred on his watch. Male Navy officers engaged in behavior that
brought real discredit to the Navy and to themselves. They treated
female Navy officers as though they were not part of the Navy, as if
they had no place being in the Navy. At its best, Tailhook reflected a
culture of resistance to gender equality. At its worst, it reflected
criminal conduct for which there is no accountability.
The behavior at Tailhook demonstrated an attitude that seemed
prevalent in at least some parts of the Navy and that Admiral Kelso had
a responsibility to change. The Department of Defense Inspector
General's report on Tailhook says that senior Navy officers were aware
that significant misconduct had taken place at previous Tailhook
conventions going back to the 1980's, and that the events that occurred
at Tailhook 1991 did not occur in a historical vacuum; that, in fact,
those disgraceful activities had taken on the aura of tradition.
Did Admiral Kelso meet his responsibility to the Navy and to its
women? The answer clearly is no. Tailhook 1991, as the Defense
Department itself said, was not an aberration. Rather, it was
indicative of a basic attitude in the Navy, a problem that needed to be
addressed at the highest level, at the leadership of the Navy. The fact
that Admiral Kelso is retiring early and the fact that Secretary of the
Navy Dalton recommended he resign suggests he recognizes that he did
not fully meet his responsibility to the Navy in general, or to women
Navy personnel in particular.
The admiral's responsibility did not end there. The Navy's
investigation of Tailhook compounded the disgrace of that incident. The
investigation was slipshod; navy officers were able to get away with
covering up their misbehavior. They got away with stonewalling any
inquiries.
Let me make my position clear. I do not think we are here to
criticize Admiral Kelso for what he did or did not witness at Tailhook,
specifically. He states forcefully that he did not personally witness
the conduct, and I am prepared, as I think most of us are, to take him
at his word for that.
What Admiral Kelso must take responsibility for, however, is the
attitude in the Navy that Tailhook betrayed, an attitude clearly
condoned at higher ranks. And what Admiral Kelso must take
responsibility for is the Navy's system of justice. He knew when he
took office that Navy justice needed reform, and he failed to reform
it. I assume that is in part, frankly, why he overturned the Navy's
finding in the Iowa disaster when he became Chief of Naval Operations.
Most importantly, Admiral Kelso must take responsibility for the Navy's
failure to ensure fairness in the treatment of all of its members, male
and female alike. More needed to be done in that regard, much more, and
it was not done. Admiral Kelso's watch will be as much remembered for
this disgraceful disregard for women as for any of his purely military
achievements. The question today is whether that disregard will be
rewarded. The women of the Senate say no.
Madam President, the Armed Services Committee voted 20 to 2 to give
congressional approval of Admiral Kelso's retirement at four stars. The
retirement at the rank of admiral carries with it tremendous prestige
and a very generous pension. It is so significant that the Senate must
approve that retirement.
I would like to bring a reality check to this debate. In the real
world, Madam President, to ordinary folks, when someone is recommended
to retire because he or she is being held accountable for misdeeds
committed during his or her tenure, this is not an event that is
celebrated or rewarded. It does not carry with it prestige or a
generous increase in pension. And yet, Madam President, that is what is
suggested we do here today.
I suggest to this body that if we are to apply a real-world standard,
we would allow Admiral Kelso to retire at the rank of the two stars
which he currently holds.
Over and over again during the committee hearing, Senators said that
sexual harassment is wrong and cannot be condoned in any way. It is
ironic, Madam President, Lt. Paula Coughlin, the woman who first
brought charges concerning the events that occurred at Tailhook, has
resigned also, but in her case without a promotion and without an
increase in pension. The committee, however, voted to allow Admiral
Kelso to retire with four stars.
I think that the committee's vote sends a signal to all the men and
the women in the armed services. It sends a signal to the Navy that the
Congress approves of its system of justice. I think the resignation of
Lieutenant Coughlin also sends a signal.
Madam President, I submit to you and to my colleagues that the
signals are crossed. The Senate must be clear. Sexual assault and
misconduct will neither be rewarded nor condoned in the military.
Responsibility for the events known as Tailhook must be borne by the
admiral in charge of naval operations. The buck for Tailhook stops with
Admiral Kelso.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Madam President, I do not wish to interrupt the debate. I
will just take the floor for a moment. We had discussed previously
before we came on board--we have been here about an hour and 15 minutes
on the matter now. I was wondering, we had talked earlier off the floor
about the possibility of a 4-hour time agreement equally divided. I do
not want to cut off debate or end debate, but I was wondering maybe if
we were at a stage now when both sides could maybe agree to such a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if that
is a request for a unanimous consent agreement, I would ask for 20
minutes under any such agreement. Otherwise, I would lodge a formal
objection.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I object to----
Mr. EXON. I have not proposed a unanimous consent request. I was just
asking if there was any sympathy for such a suggestion.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for raising the
issue. I think, as of yet, we are not quite sure how many Senators wish
to speak, and at this time would object to a unanimous consent time
agreement.
Mr. EXON. I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I think at the outset of my comments I
want to stipulate just a couple of things.
First of all, the Tailhook symposium activities were totally
repugnant, repugnant to the U.S. Navy, repugnant to the women who were
there, whether they were uniformed or not, but especially to the
uniformed women who are serving this country with dedication and with
courage and with effectiveness, and I think repugnant to the entire
Department of Defense.
This conduct was unacceptable in 1991. In my view, it would have been
unacceptable in 1951 or 1931 or 1911. I do not think we have to be in
an age of political correctness for this conduct to be labeled
repugnant at any interval of our history.
I believe that Admiral Kelso has said virtually the same thing and
said it many times. I will come back to this key point before I
conclude my remarks. But the theory here seems to be more and more that
the captain should go down with the ship. That is a time-honored
tradition in the United States Navy.
In this case, I think everyone should understand that Admiral Kelso
offered to resign in 1992. He was willing to go down with the ship. He
was willing to be held accountable. That resignation was turned down by
his civilian superiors, and he was asked to stay on and to try to
remedy these problems, to try to straighten out what I would also
stipulate was a botched investigation, and to try to bring dignity and
honor to the U.S. Navy.
He also took on the job of making sure that everything that could be
done from his level was done to end sexual harassment in the Navy, to
end sexual discrimination in the Navy, and to treat everyone in the
U.S. Navy with the kind of dignity and honor they deserved.
So the captain of this ship, Admiral Kelso, offered to go down with
the ship.
Now the question is, 3 years later, 2\1/2\ years later, we find the
captain of the ship, Tailhook, on the shore, on the shore, and now the
question is, do we say to the captain of this ship, you should have
been down on the bottom with the ship when it went down? There was a
mistake made in 1992. You should have gone down with the ship. So we
are going to take a rowboat, put you in the rowboat, tie an anchor to
your leg, and throw you down to the ship where you should have been all
along.
That is what we face here today. That is what we face here. If you
want accountability with the captain going down with the ship--and
there is something to be said for that--it has to be viewed on a case-
by-case basis, and it relates to a lot of different considerations. But
if you want accountability under that theory, it ought to be
contemporaneous accountability, not accountability 2\1/2\ or 3 years
later from an individual who has done everything he could do to
straighten up this mess, and to end the repugnant conduct that led to
this unacceptable behavior in 1991.
Madam President, last Thursday evening when the Armed Services
Committee favorably reported Admiral Kelso's nomination, I put the
statement that I made at the committee's open session prior to the
committee's vote in the Record. Since those comments which describe in
detail my views on this nomination are now in the Record, and since
there are so many people who want to speak here this afternoon, I am
going to make my remarks more brief than I did at the committee
meeting.
I want to state at the outset--and I will discuss this more fully--
that if you agree with the military trial judge findings that Admiral
Kelso witnessed misconduct at Tailhook, and if you agree that Admiral
Kelso manipulated the investigative process to shield both himself and
senior naval officers, then you should clearly vote against this
nomination.
If I agreed with those findings, I would vote ``no,'' and I would
lead the charge voting ``no.'' If you agree with the findings of the
DOD inspector general who viewed this in a much more comprehensive and
exhaustive fashion, if you agree with the findings of Secretary Perry,
Secretary Dalton, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
Shalikashvili, that Admiral Kelso neither witnessed misconduct nor
manipulated the investigative process, then I believe the issue shifts
to one of accountability. And there are serious issues relating to
accountability that have been brought up today.
Obviously, there are some in this body who believe in absolute
accountability, even if it is 3 years later or 2\1/2\ years later, and
those views are being expressed very forcefully here today.
I believe we need to look at the implications of this in the broader
context. First of all, I want to note my own thinking, where I am on
this matter, and why I arrive at my judgment. I relied on the
conclusions of the DOD Deputy Inspector General, Dereck Vander Schaaf,
who has a well-deserved reputation for all who followed his career of
telling it like it is. He does not pull punches, and everybody that has
followed his career knows that.
His first report on Tailhook led to the early retirement of two Navy
admirals. It led to the replacement of the Navy inspector general with
a three-star admiral, and the replacement of the uniform head of the
Naval Investigative Service with a civilian.
To say there have been no uniform military people punished is simply
wrong. It is wrong. That report by the IG was a scathing attack on the
Navy investigations. You can get a flavor of that report in the
following sentence in the forwarding memorandum. ``We also concluded
that the inadequacies in the investigations were due to the collective
management failures and personal failures on the part of the Under
Secretary, the Navy IG, the Navy JAG, and the Commander of the Naval
Investigative Service.'' The DOD IG concluded that Admiral Kelso did
not observe misconduct at Tailhook and did not thwart the
investigation.
Second, I rely on the testimony of Secretary of Defense William
Perry, Secretary of Navy John Dalton, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Shalikashvili. Secretary Perry and Secretary Dalton
had the independent duty to assess the evidence to determine whether
administrative or disciplinary proceedings should be brought against
Admiral Kelso and whether he should be retired in grade.
Secretary Perry, Secretary Dalton, and General Shalikashvili
concluded that Admiral Kelso did not personally witness misconduct
during Tailhook and did not manipulate the investigative process to
shield himself and senior naval officers.
Third, I rely on Admiral Kelso's 38 years of distinguished service to
our Nation, and his leading role in enhancing the ability of women in
the Navy to serve at sea and in combat aviation positions and
dramatically changing the Navy's focus from open ocean to littoral
warfare and in urging an independent investigation of Tailhook when he
received the result of the Navy's investigation.
Finally and most importantly, I relied on my personal knowledge of
Admiral Kelso. I have known Admiral Kelso since the 1970's. I have
always found him to be an individual of the highest integrity and
veracity. I believe Admiral Kelso is one of the least manipulative
persons I have ever known in the U.S. military. Like anyone else, he
has his faults, but deceit and manipulation are not even part of his
style, and everyone who knows him understands that.
So one cannot divorce one's personal observations when you are
judging someone's integrity, and when you are judging their record.
As I stated earlier, if you believe the trial judge's finding that
Admiral Kelso actually witnessed misconduct at Tailhook, and that he
manipulated the process, then you would necessarily conclude that he
lied in court when he denied seeing any misconduct or manipulating
process. In that case, he not only should be denied a fourth star, he
probably should have been court martialed for perjury. On the other
hand, if you believe the DOD IG, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Navy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, then you will
conclude, as I did, that Admiral Kelso told the truth and did not
witness any misconduct at Tailhook and did not manipulate the process.
The issue then, if you believe the IG and the Secretary of Defense,
becomes one of accountability. And the issue becomes a standard of
performance we expect of our military leaders.
Madam President, we hold our military leaders to a very high
standard, but it is not one, and it never has been one, of strict
liability for anything that goes wrong during that tenure. If that were
the case, few of our senior leaders would retire in grade. Think how
many times in our military history a standard of absolute
accountability would have meant termination, early retirement,
demotion, and even court martial for people in charge when disasters
occurred.
Let us take the failed attempt to rescue American hostages from Iran
in 1980. There were serious deficiencies in planning and execution of
this critical operation. Gen. David Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff at that time, was subsequently nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate to retire in a four-star grade.
The 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was another
disaster marked by serious deficiencies in planning and preparation.
Gen. P.X. Kelly was the Commandant of the Marine Corps, subsequently
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to retire in a
four-star grade.
In 1987, the U.S.S. Stark was struck by an Iraqi missile in
circumstances demonstrating problems in training and preparation.
In 1988, the explosion of the gun turret on the U.S.S. Iowa led to 47
deaths in circumstances reflecting problems in training, as well as
serious deficiencies in the subsequent investigations and review.
By the way, on that one, Admiral Kelso was not the CNO when it
happened. He was the one who came in and cleaned it up after our
committee produced independent evidence from the laboratories. He said:
Let us go back and look at it again. He not only went back and looked
at it again, he apologized for the Navy investigation. I have seen some
references to that being part of his tenure. It is just the contrary.
He came in after it occurred and he cleaned it up.
In 1989, another ship, the U.S.S. Vincennes, mistakingly shot down an
Iranian civilian airliner in circumstances reflecting problems in
training and operations. Adm. Carlisle Trost, who was the Chief of
Naval Operations during each of these problems, subsequently was
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to retire in the
four-star grade.
In 1976, the Army had a major cheating scandal at West Point,
reflecting serious deficiencies at the Academy. Gen. Frederick Weyand,
the Chief of the Army at that time, was nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate to retire in the four-star grade.
Going back a little further, in 1968, the North Koreans captured the
U.S.S. Pueblo. That was a very humiliating incident, for those who
recall. Adm. Thomas Moorer, who was the Chief of Naval Operations at
the time, and Gen. Earle Wheeler, who was then the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, both were subsequently nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate to retire in the four-star grade.
In the 1960's and early 1970's, the military, as we all know, was
beset by severe racial problems, including race riots such as those
that occurred on the U.S.S. Constellation and on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk
in 1971. The then Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Elmo Zumwalt,
subsequently was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate
to retire in grade.
Could any of these problems have been avoided if senior leadership
had performed their duties with absolute perfection? Yes, perhaps. Did
the President or the Senate hold any of them to a standard of strict
liability for deficiencies that occurred during their tenure? We did
not. And if we do so today, make no mistake about it. We are sending a
different signal. We are creating a different precedent.
I want to emphasize, the issue of accountability is very important to
the Committee on Armed Services. Military commanders and civilian
leaders have responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
awesome arsenal of America's Armed Forces. We hold them to a very high
level of accountability for their actions, as well as their omissions.
As Secretary Perry noted in his testimony before our committee, when
something goes wrong, the primary issue with respect to accountability
involves the question of due diligence--due diligence. Given the
individual's position, scope of responsibility, and relationship to the
incident, we must ask whether the individual acted with due diligence;
and if not, how serious was the individual's deficiency?
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, our committee spends an extensive amount
of time reviewing nominations on the issue of accountability. Our
actions in the Tailhook matter are a prime example. All Navy and Marine
Corps nominations were held up by our committee. The Senator from
Virginia and I made the joint announcement when we found that the
investigation was going awry, and the Senator from California, who now
occupies the chair, I remember, was very much involved and attentive to
that at that time because she called me and wrote me a very nice letter
about it. All Navy and Marine Corps nominations were held up until a
process was put in place to ensure that the committee obtained all the
information necessary to assess every officer's accountability and
responsibility with respect to the operation or scenario we call
Tailhook symposium. Every one of them was held up. We disrupted the
whole promotion system of the Navy for a matter of months because we
were disturbed, because we felt that the investigation had not been
handled properly, and because we were demanding accountability.
Madam President, we require that the executive branch provide us with
all adverse information regarding each flag and general officer nominee
in all branches of the service, Navy and Marine Corps, including
nominations for retirement in grade. We scrutinize that information
with care. We take it into account when acting on a nomination. We have
done that for 2\1/2\ years; we have done it on every one of them.
Madam President, there is such a thing as retiring without three and
four stars, and I do not want to lead anyone to believe today, by my
defense of Admiral Kelso and my vote for him, which will come later, or
assume today that I do not believe it is appropriate to review these
matters and to take action where the record so indicates.
A recent example involves our review of the Air Force promotion
system in 1992. The committee conducted a review. We issued a report
documenting serious systemic deficiencies in the procedures used by the
Air Force to select officers for promotion. During the period in which
the committee considered the deficiencies in the Air Force promotion
process reported by the Department of Defense, the committee also
considered the nomination to retire in grade of a three-star officer
who had served as Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for personnel.
The committee carefully reviewed his specific responsibilities for
the promotion system. We concluded he had not acted with due diligence
with respect to an ongoing major responsibility for his office, and we
determined that his nomination should not be reported to the Senate. As
a result, he retired in a two-star grade.
I think our committee probably spent more time on this nomination
than any other single thing during that particular interval. I
personally probably spent 50 to 75 hours reviewing that one record.
But we did it with a great deal of care, and we applied the standard
of due diligence. We looked at not only his overall record, which was
splendid, but we looked at his tenure in office. We looked at his
connection to the wrong that had taken place in the promotion system,
and we applied the standard of due diligence.
Neither the executive branch nor the Congress, however, applied a
standard of absolute accountability, because if we had, we would have
also held accountable the Chief of Staff of the Air Force during that
period. We would have held accountable the four-star above him, and
everybody else in the chain of command.
We did not sweep out and condemn the whole Air Force because of that
deficiency. We tried to find who was at fault.
The tragedy in Tailhook and the reason we are here today is because
the Navy investigative system and the Navy justice system did not
produce convictions. If there had been three or four junior officers or
even senior officers convicted under court martial, we would not be
here today. We all know that.
There is a frustration, and an understandable frustration, that
nobody has been convicted. I am frustrated, too, because we all know
that crimes took place. But in our frustration, we also have the duty
of justice, the duty of looking at this case, the duty of looking at an
individual. We cannot, in the U.S. Senate, abandon looking at an
individual case in our frustration because the system in this case did
not work.
It did not work, and I think Admiral Kelso would probably be the most
frustrated person in the Navy because this system did not work.
Was it lack of due diligence on his part? That is what everybody has
to ask. In my opinion, I know it was not, because I talked to him too
many times. I do not expect everybody in the Senate to understand that.
Nor do I expect it to be persuasive evidence. But to me, it is
persuasive because I talked to him time after time after time. At one
point, the Navy became so aggressive trying to convict people that they
had to be cautioned to apply due process and not to scapegoat someone
because they just happened to be in the way.
We have to have the same standard here. I had to call several of the
senior people in the Navy into the armed services room and say: You
have to be diligent; you have to pursue this investigation; you have to
do everything you can on it. But you cannot throw out due process and
eliminate all rights of individuals. And that was the tendency at one
time, because they were so intent on bringing about some sense of
justice in this outrage, which leaves us all frustrated.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, will the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Service Committee yield for a question?
Mr. NUNN. I am glad to yield for a question.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Acknowledging what the Senator is saying, in his own
very fine record on these matters, is it the Senator's findings that
the investigation of the Tailhook matter was bungled?
Mr. NUNN. Yes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. And there is conflicting evidence between the military
court and the IG reports?
Mr. NUNN. Yes, definitely.
Ms. MIKULSKI. And, essentially, the culture seems to lend itself to
these bungled investigations?
Mr. NUNN. I would say we have a serious problem in the whole
investigative services, not just for the Navy but for the other
services. But we also have it not simply in sexual harassment cases, it
is across the board. And I have talked at length with the new Secretary
of Defense and with Secretary Aspin about that. We need to have more
continuity. We need to have more professionalism. There is too much
rotation in the military for people to become professional.
I have run an investigative subcommittee now for 10 or 12 years.
Investigators are wonderful people, but they have to have supervision,
they have to have careful supervision. I think that is what we are
missing. We do have a system.
Ms. MIKULSKI. So it is not the issue of sexual harassment, but there
are bungled investigations.
In the matter of the Tailhook, is it also the Senator's finding or
observation--perhaps ``finding'' is too strict a legal word--that there
was this coverup and there is this conspiracy of what I have said, the
buddy system over the honor system, and which there is an actual
conspiracy to lie and to distort the events, a bonding, if you will,
among the junior officers not to come forth with the facts of the
occasion?
Mr. NUNN. I could not identify with that broad a statement that the
Senator from Maryland made. But I would readily agree that, based on
what I have read, there certainly was not cooperation by a number of
Navy officers. They did not cooperate with the original investigation;
some of them did not. I am sure that within that there must have been
some misleading statements and there must have been some effort by
individuals to cover up.
I would not conclude from that that there was a broad conspiracy,
because I do not have enough evidence to warrant that. But there
certainly was not cooperation by a number of Navy personnel with the
Navy investigation, as well as the IG investigation. I would agree.
Ms. MIKULSKI. So as we can see, there is a lot to be changed, both
the law and the culture.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, the Senator from Maryland is correct, the
culture does need changing. And I happen to know that Admiral Kelso
spent more time trying to change the culture of the Navy in this area,
probably than any other feature, during his entire CNO tenure.
That is why I am here defending him, knowing that there is a search
and a frustration to find someone to punish. That is the mood of the
Senate today, is to find someone to punish.
The Senate of the United States needs to administer due process and
justice and make sure that when we vote to basically, in effect, punish
Admiral Kelso--if we do, and I hope we do not --that we should do so
after searching our conscience and after looking at the evidence and
after looking at his tenure and after looking at his due diligence and
after looking at the entire case, not simply out of frustration and not
simply because nobody has yet been punished severely enough for this
body in terms of the transgressions that occurred.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. NUNN. Yes, I yield to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first I wish to commend Senators to read
the Congressional Record of April 14, page S. 4366, when the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee spoke to this
body about this issue before. His previous statement, and the statement
that he has just made, reflect one of the most courageous statements
ever made in the history of the Armed Services Committee when he
addressed the full Senate just prior to the vote.
But I would like to proceed to a question, Madam President, of the
chairman.
He used the word ``punishment.'' And he referred only to Admiral
Kelso. But I would hope that those who are debating here today would
broaden the word punishment to include Admiral Kelso's partner for 38
years in the U.S. Navy, his wife and his family. They are subject to
the same punishment that this body is considering.
For 38 years, Mrs. Kelso has packed and unpacked and traveled
throughout the world, as have other Navy wives, other Army wives, other
Air Force wives, other Marine Corps wives. Military service is a
partnership. It is a family.
Part of that punishment will be monetary. And, Madam President, I ran
this calculation. Assuming Admiral Kelso elected to participate in the
survivor's benefit plan, which the great majority of regular officers
have participated in, his surviving spouse, again should she survive
the admiral, would lose $770 a month if he retired, subject to Senate
action, as a two-star versus four.
Madam President, I ask the chairman, is that fair to the Navy family?
Is that fair to a wife? What message does that send to the wives at all
ranks, from seaman to four star, as to the fairness of this body in
judging this case?
I hope those standing in opposition to Admiral Kelso today will
address that question, but I pose it first to the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. NUNN. I would say to my friend from Virginia, I think the
military personnel, men and women in the military, will be looking at
the U.S. Senate vote today to determine basically whether they believe
that the U.S. Senate is capable of looking at a case that has very
broad symbolism, but to look beyond the symbolism and to look for
justice to the individual.
I would say to my friend from Virginia, the monetary consideration
certainly would be significant. But knowing Admiral Kelso as I do, I
believe he would give up the money in a moment, and I believe his wife
would also. I believe he would rather have physical mutilation than for
the U.S. Senate to vote, in effect, that he is responsible for Tailhook
and that we are holding him absolutely accountable, notwithstanding the
fact that the Navy IG, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of the Navy, and everyone concerned in the
Department of Defense chain of command believes that he did not
manipulate the process and that he did not personally witness the kind
of transgressions that later came to light.
So I believe that the money is a part of it, but I believe it is a
very small part of it, because this goes to integrity, it goes to a
man's career, it goes to honor.
And I would say that the question of the Senator from Virginia,
certainly, about the family and the wife and all of the people that are
part of the Kelso family, is not only appropriate but very pertinent.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, a second question to my distinguished
chairman.
Yes, I tried to make the point money was an example. But a military
at all levels is a partnership between that service person who wears
the uniform--be he or she male or female--and the spouse and the
family. That is what is being judged by the Senate today.
And I put that question to the chairman: Does he recall the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs during the hearing? Our record reflects the
following:
So, my question to you, General Shalikashvili, how would
the men and women of United States military today, of all
branches, view it as an act of fairness if this committee and
the Senate were to reject the request of the President to
retire Admiral Kelso at fours stars?
The general replied:
I believe, without any hesitation, that they would not see
a reduction in rank as a fair act. They would see that as a
reaction to something that was very wrong at Tailhook, and
trying to find someone to hold accountable for it and that
settling on Admiral Kelso. And that would not be correct, nor
considered fair.
It is the issue of fairness.
And I say to every Senator, as you proceed to cast your vote--
hopefully today--ask of yourselves: How will the men and women of the
Armed Forces, particularly those from your respective States serving at
this moment on 120 ships on the high seas, serving in over 50 military
installations in the Navy alone--but this is not just a Naval question;
this is all branches; the issue of fairness--how would that
serviceperson from your State wearing the uniform view your vote? Was
it fair or unfair to them as well as Admiral Kelso?
I thank the chairman.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I agree with his
remarks.
Madam President, I will wind up my remarks because I know there are
others who would like to speak. Let me just summarize by saying, as the
senior uniformed officer in the Navy, Admiral Kelso had supervisory
responsibility for those who planned and conducted the Tailhook
symposium and for those who conducted the investigation. The
responsibility, however, was also ultimately in the hands of his
civilian superiors.
He could have done better, and I would venture to say that, if he was
standing here today, he would tell all of us that, if he could go back,
he would probably think of some things he could do better. If that is
our standard, though, we are adopting a new standard. It is my view
that he was not made aware of this conduct before and during Tailhook,
he did not impede or interfere with the subsequent investigation.
On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that he intended the
Navy to undertake a proper investigation and that he acted vigorously
to combat the problems that were at the root cause of the Tailhook
misconduct.
Make no mistake about it, this effort has to go on. This is not one
of those things where you say, ``We have cleaned up this mess. Now we
can go on to other things.'' The effort in giving women an equal
opportunity and preventing sexual misconduct in the military is an
ongoing, continuous effort that must be followed by everyone in the
chain of command. No matter who the new CNO is--and I hope we will
confirm Admiral Boorda next week--there is no way he can supervise the
conduct of several hundred thousand personnel--no way. He can set a
standard. He can set the kind of atmosphere that we all desire and
want. But we are going to continue to have problems in the U.S.
military in sexual areas, just as we continue to have some problems in
the racial areas--although, thankfully, with the leadership of the
military, those problems have gone down immensely. The real question
is, once something happens, do we have accountability, and do we do
everything we can to prevent and deter that conduct to begin with?
I repeat, for those who believe the captain ought to go down with the
ship, Admiral Kelso offered to resign in 1992 in order to allow other
individuals to chart a new course for the U.S. Navy. His civilian
superior declined to accept his resignation. If he had resigned in
1992, contemporary to any kind of failure of leadership that may have
occurred, would we have denied him his fourth star, in 1992? If he
said, ``I am taking the responsibility, I am resigning,'' would we, on
the floor of the Senate in 1992, say, ``Not only are you going to
resign and take the responsibilities; we are going to deny you your 38
years of service in achieving your fourth star''?
I think the answer is obvious. No, we would not. So what are we
doing? Since he is the last one standing, we are saying: No, you did
not resign because your superiors did not allow you to resign. They
wanted you to stay on. They thought you were the best person to try to
straighten up this tragedy we call Tailhook. You stayed on. You have
done everything you could do to get the women in the military, women in
the Navy, an equal opportunity. You made tremendous strides. But since
nobody else has been convicted, the target is Kelso. That is where we
are today.
Is that justice? Is that fairness?
I ask everyone to examine his or her conscience on this matter. If
the standard which the Senate wishes to apply is absolute
accountability, then Admiral Kelso does not meet that standard. Nor
would virtually every CNO we have had for the last 45 years. You could
go back and look at military history. You will not find a one that did
not have something bad, something tragic occur during that tenure as
Chief of Naval Operations. If, however, the standard is the high degree
of due diligence that we have applied in the past with respect to our
military leaders on the issue of retirement in grade, then Admiral
Kelso should be confirmed to retire as a four-star admiral.
Mr. EXON. Before yielding the floor, will the Senator yield for a
question from me?
Mr. NUNN. Yes.
Mr. EXON. I have been listening with great interest to the excellent
comments by the chairman of the committee. I have some statistics on
point here, and I was wondering, they seem to indicate--basically to
prove--what the Senator from Georgia said and also the remarks made by
the Senator from Virginia.
Is the Senator aware of the exact numbers, over the last 5 years, of
those who have been nominated for and received retirement in the third
or fourth star grade?
Mr. NUNN. I do not have those numbers in my head, but they are
substantial numbers.
Mr. EXON. I think they might fit in right now. If I might read them
into the Record, they may prove the point the Senator has made so well.
Earlier today it was suggested in debate that there was something
extraordinary, that we were somehow rewarding Admiral Kelso if we
retired him in the four grade status. That certainly is not the case.
The Senator from Georgia has made that point. In fact, it would be
extraordinary if he did not retire in the fourth grade.
In the last 5 years, there have been 206 individuals in the third or
fourth star grades of admirals and generals to retire; 200 of the 206--
all but 6--retired on their highest grade, basically along the specific
items that were cited earlier by the Senator from Georgia. Three were
eligible to retire at the three star, but were not nominated by the
President for that rank. In other words, of the six that did not
receive the higher rank, three, for reasons best known to the
President, were not so indicated. Three others were nominated by the
President to retire, but were not confirmed to retire at the four-star
or three-star grade by the Senate.
It seems to me that these figures show that it is normal and
customary for three and four grade generals and admirals to retire at
the higher grade. But it is not automatic, which shows that we do take
a look at these things. Both the President and the Senate review these
retirements in great detail.
I simply say, once again, I thank my chairman for his excellent
remarks. There is no rubberstamp under the leadership of Senator Nunn
on this or any other matter that comes before our body. Certainly in
the case of Admiral Kelso, both the President and 20 of the 22 members
of the Armed Services Committee recommended the admiral retire in his
rank of admiral. We looked at it. We reviewed it. And I certainly agree
with my friend from Georgia that to do otherwise in this instance would
be a complete reversal and have some ill effects on other people that
are looking to retirement in the future.
I thank my friend from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend from Nebraska. I commend him for those
facts, which I think are very important.
This would be an exception. This would be a dramatic exception. I am
not against exceptions where the facts warrant them. I am not against
retiring people at a lower rank if the facts warrant it. My view is the
facts do not warrant it here.
Madam President, in closing, let me commend those who are on the
other side of this debate today--not because I agree with them, not
because I think their logic is impeccable. Obviously, I do not in this
case. But they are sincere. They are absolutely dedicated to making
sure that we honor the men and women who serve in our military; that we
treat everyone equitably in our military.
They recognize that women are an indispensable part of our national
security now. I commend them for that point, which needs to be made
over, and over, and over again on the floor of the Senate.
I hope that everyone in the military in uniform who listened to this
debate will understand that the facts of this case divide us. There is
no division in terms of condemning the activity that took place at the
Tailhook symposium. There is no division in terms of the kind of honor
and integrity that we expect of our military leaders and that we expect
of the men and women who serve in the military. We simply cannot have
an effective national security unless the women in the military are
treated equitably and with respect and with dignity.
I thank the Chair.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I believe that there has been a new and
higher standard, as those who argue for Admiral Kelso getting four
stars are attempting to inject into this argument, that is fallacious.
I do not see that this is an issue, to quote the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, of ``absolute accountability.''
I do not think this is an issue as to whether or not Admiral Kelso
witnessed the events at the Tailhook Convention, those that were
clearly found to be sexual harassment. I accept that he did not witness
these events, because if he did, and if he perjured himself, why, then,
this proceeding would have taken place sooner. He would have been
drummed out of the Navy long before now.
I accept the contention that maybe he should have and would have even
been offered the opportunity to resign in 1992 and may have even
resigned as a four-star admiral. But that is not the situation today,
because I do not believe that he has exercised due diligence, and I do
not believe that he has met the standard of accountability as the
commanding officer that he should have, subsequent to the events
mentioned at the convention.
When we talk about fairness and justice, let me ask my colleagues who
argue for fairness and justice for the admiral--and I understand the
pain he and his family must be enduring--but what about the fairness
and justice for Lt. Paula Coughlin? What about the victim who first
came forward? What about the victim who continues to be victimized
today? What about the victim who has literally been drummed out of the
Navy, who just several months ago resigned, that resignation being
tendered in February, accepted in April and effective in May?
Let me ask you where was the admiral and where was his followup and
where was his counsel to meet with and have his people meeting with the
lieutenant and to see to it that the harassment that continued, that
kind of freezing out, that kind of situation that has left the
lieutenant embittered today? Where was her justice?
Where was this new revolution that really gave meaning to the fact
that we understand that sexual harassment cannot and should not be
condoned? I do not hold the admiral to a new and higher standard of
strict accountability. That is not what this question is about.
No one seeks to say that because it happened on your watch, any
unfortunate incident of this kind, that we hold the commander
accountable for it, but we certainly do as it relates to dealing with
it afterward.
Was the problem dealt with appropriately? I think the answer clearly
is no. If we were to go forward and give him his four stars, we would
be saying that the admiral has conducted himself appropriately; that
the victim was given justice; that we have really turned the situation
around. I say let us look at the record, and I see that the record is
clear. Paula Coughlin was victimized at Tailhook. Lt. Paula Coughlin
still continues to be victimized, and that it is the failure of the
commanding officer, Admiral Kelso. I intend to vote no on this
nomination.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I listened very carefully to what
Senator Nunn and Senator Warner had to say. I have great respect for
both of them. I do not think there are any two Members of this body
that know more about the military than do they. I think we are very
privileged to have their service in this body.
However, I must say I look at this a little differently. I took the
time to read the IG report, to read the trial judge's ruling, and also
read a Navy policy document with which I would like to begin. This is
entitled ``The Navy Policy Book. A Single Reference of the Most
Important Guiding Principles of Our Navy.''
There is one section, and it is titled ``Accountability is critical
to our success.'' It is very short, and I want to read it. It says:
We accept the consequences of our own actions. In
leadership positions, we bear responsibility for the actions
of our subordinates. We are members of the naval service 24
hours a day, and we are accountable for our professional and
personal behavior, both on and off the job.
This is signed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary
of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Kelso himself.
I find it a very difficult thing not to give someone full honors when
they retire after a lifetime of good service. I also find it very
difficult to put a Senate imprimatur on a nomination when the issue is
about the personal behavior of people at a Navy convention, sanctioned
by the Navy, and the fact that there were hundreds of Navy officers and
those of flag rank present who saw, who knew, who condoned, who
participated, and who did nothing.
That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Is what appears in this
Navy policy book a statement that is going to be followed, or do we
practice tacit hypocrisy?
Admiral Kelso has had a distinguished career of 38 years in the U.S.
Navy, and he has risen to its highest rank. Under normal circumstances,
he would be nominated and go out with his four stars. But what I
contend is, these are not normal circumstances.
We, the women of the Senate, have been bringing to public attention
the issue of sexual harassment. It started in different ways.
Everywhere we turn, we see it. We know but one way to send a message,
and that is to send a message to every flag officer in the U.S. Navy
and every officer in every other branch of the military, that if you
come before this body, and if you have not exercised your full command
responsibility, as put out in policy books like this one, the Senate of
the United States is not going to put their imprimatur on your
retirement.
I feel constrained to make some other statements about some of the
specifics of this. Many of my colleagues have outlined what took place
at Tailhook, and I do not want to rehash that entire incident. But I
think we must look into this a little more deeply.
According to the Department of Defense inspector general, at least 90
indecent sexual assaults took place at the 1991 convention. This,
though, apparently was nothing. Tailhook 1991 was tame compared to
earlier conventions.
This has been pattern and practice in the U.S. Navy. The annual event
began in 1956, and rowdy and improper behavior supposedly culminated at
the 1985 convention.
The president of the Tailhook Association itself warned members in
preparation for the 1991 convention that there were problems with
``gang mentality.'' It appears that Tailhook conventions of the past
have been tolerated with the notion that boys will be boys, a notion
which simply can no longer be permitted in today's Armed Forces. That
is the message of our stand. You have a responsibility in the U.S.
Armed Forces that is both personal as well as professional, and that
responsibility exists 24 hours a day.
The Department of Defense inspector general is quite specific in
detailing the various kinds of assaults that took place. When a female
entered what was called a gauntlet--and I wish to point out in this
report one chart which indicates where the assaults took place.
This is the notorious third floor of the Hilton Hotel, and the title
of this chart is ``Incidents of Indecent Assault on Saturday, September
7.'' There were approximately 80 such assaults which all took place in
a corridor. This corridor is known as the gauntlet. Women were abused
as they ran that gauntlet.
The question is, on whose watch did this happen? The question is why
did not someone stop it? This went on for several hours. And this was
not the only behavior. There were incidents that took place which,
frankly, I do not want to mention on the Senate floor. I do not believe
it is appropriate.
But as a woman walked the gauntlet, as she was molested, if a woman
resisted, it got worse. So the more a woman fought and resisted, the
more the males attacked.
This is part of the problem of leadership. I recognize it would not
be popular, if admirals were out on the patio, to go in and say, ``Hey,
guys, knock it off; this thing is at an end.'' But do I think they
should have? Yes.
Let me read one comment from trial judge Captain Vest's findings, and
this is quoting Vice Admiral Dunleavy. It is on page 6. Vice Admiral
Dunleavy says:
I've seen some wild stuff over the years--broken furniture
and spilled drinks. I heard of the '90 gauntlet from my son.
He says it's a bunch of drunks running around chasing girls.
It's a grabass of JO's [junior officers]. Everyone just lines
up in the passageway and every good looking girl that goes
through, they grab at some of that.
This is what we are trying to put an end to. This is the statement of
a vice-admiral in the U.S. Navy. This statement says this attitude had
been condoned.
Now, when you talk about Admiral Kelso, you also have to speak about
what exactly did he do. And one of the things that disturbed me when I
read the testimony of the trial judge--and I recognize that this trial
judge's findings are contested.
However, with Admiral Kelso's retirement, we will never really know
the truth because the Navy decided not to appeal the ruling. So this is
the testimony which remains on record, the findings of a military trial
judge. Let me quote, and I will begin on page 3.
In short, they reason as follows:
Admiral Kelso's presence on the patio during the evening
hours of 6 and 7 September '91, at which times he either
observed or knew of the inappropriate behavior of his
subordinates and failed to act to stop such behavior; Admiral
Kelso's subsequent status as a criminal suspect and as a
potential material witness; and the current controversy
regarding Admiral Kelso's denial that he was ever physically
present on the patio during the evening hours of 7 September
'91, viewed either separately or collectively, give him an
interest other than ``official'' in the outcome of the
prosecution of courts martial stemming from Tailhook '91.
If Admiral Kelso has an ``other than official interest'' in
this litigation generally, or these three accused cases
specifically, he is an ``accuser'' within the meaning of
article I9 United States Code of Military Justice. As an
accuser, Admiral Kelso was disqualified from appointing any
subordinate in rank of command to convene a court martial
stemming from Tailhook '91, and as a subordinate in rank and
command to Admiral Kelso, Vice-Admiral Reason became a junior
accuser and was disqualified from acting as the convening
authority in these cases pursuant to RCM 504(C)2.
And I go on reading:
Finally, that Admiral Kelso's action in appointing a
subordinate, Vice-Admiral Reason, to act as the CDA, when
Admiral Kelso knew himself to be a possible suspect for his
own actions relating to Tailhook '91, which appointment
effectively shielded himself and possibly other officers
senior to Vice-Admiral Reason from courts martial, amounted
to unlawful command influence within the meaning of article 7
UCMJ.
Now, that is the record of the trial judge.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield right there?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I please finish my statement. I would appreciate
it. I have been here for 2, almost 3 hours now waiting for the
opportunity, and I would like to finish the statement.
If I might go now to the inspector general report and read from
section 10 of that report, the third paragraph. This is under the
section ``Officer Attitudes.''
Although there were approximately 4,000 naval officers at
Tailhook '91 and significant evidence of serious misconduct
involving 117 officers has been developed, the number of
individuals involved in all types of misconduct or other
inappropriate behavior was more widespread than these figures
would suggest.
Furthermore, several hundred other officers were aware of
the misconduct and chose to ignore it. We believe that many
of these officers deliberately lied or sought to mislead our
investigators in an effort to protect themselves or their
fellow officers.
And then let me go on and read from the IG report on ``Attitudes.''
One disturbing aspect of the attitudes exhibited at
Tailhook '91 was the blatant sexism displayed by some
officers toward women. The attitude is best exemplified by a
T-shirt worn by several male officers. The back of the shirt
reads ``Women Are Property,'' while the front reads, ``He-man
Women-Haters Club.'' The shirts, as well as demeaning posters
and lapel pins, expressed an attitude held by some male
attendees that women were at Tailhook to serve the male
attendees, and that women were not welcome within naval
aviation.
And then it goes on to cite the failure of leadership.
One of the most difficult issues we sought to address was
accountability from a leadership standpoint for the events at
Tailhook '91. The various types of misconduct that took place
on the third floor corridor, if not tacitly approved, were
nevertheless allowed to continue by the leadership of the
naval aviation community and the Tailhook Association.
The military is a hierarchical organization which requires
and is supposed to ensure accountability at every level. As
one moves up through the chain of command, the focus on
accountability narrows to fewer individuals. At the
highest levels of the command structure, accountability
becomes less dependent on actual knowledge of the specific
actions of subordinates. At some point, ``the buck stops
here'' applies.
And I will stop at this point reading from the IG report.
So, Madam President, what I believe we women are saying is it cannot
be business as usual in the U.S. military. Women are taking their
places in the ranks of the military, defending our Nation proudly, and
they must be treated with respect. They are not property. They are not
to serve people who view themselves as women haters. They are
individuals. They are there to serve one entity, and that is their
country, the United States of America, and they are to be treated with
respect, their minds as well as their bodies. And I hope this is not
looked at as any--at least it is not on my part, and I know it is not
on the part of my female colleagues--any kind of female need to speak
out. What it is is that we have suddenly come head on with the whole
ethic, a whole mentality, a whole period of decades of condoning
activity of people at official conventions, official behavior at
conventions, and in their personal lifestyle as well.
These activities at wild parties--heavy drinking, lewd behavior,
molestation, attacks of women, indecent gestures made to passersby--
cannot be condoned on the part of anyone in the American military. I
believe that we by our actions are simply trying to send a message that
if leaders come before the Senate expecting the body to put their
imprimatur on their leadership, that leadership must be complete; and
when incidents happen on your watch, and when you are there, and when
you may know they are going on and you do nothing to stop them, it is a
mistake. It is failed leadership. And you must be held accountable.
So I hope that our votes are viewed in this light. I believe a man
should not be judged by the last thing he did. He should be judged in
his life by the best thing he did. Nonetheless, the issues here have
been joined, and the Senate simply cannot sanction these kinds of
activities at officially sponsored conventions of the U.S. military.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement now appear
in the Record.
I thank you. I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein Regarding the Retirement of Adm.
Frank B. Kelso, II, Tuesday, April 19, 1994
I rise today concerning a very important and difficult
issue to come before the Senate: the nomination of Frank
Kelso to retire as a four-star admiral.
Admiral Kelso has had a distinguished 38-year career as a
Navy officer. Under normal circumstances, the Senate would
most likely confirm his retirement with four stars--the rank
he currently holds as Chief of Naval Operations.
However, the action, or non-action, that the Senate takes
will send a signal through the entire Defense Department. I
do not think that the Senate imprimatur should be put on the
leadership of a Navy that endorsed and poorly investigated a
major military scandal.
As we all know, the controversy over Admiral Kelso's
retirement dates back to the infamous 1991 Tailhook
convention at the Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas--an event which
cast a dark shadow over the entire United States Navy, a
shadow that remains even today. In addition, the Navy has
been shaken by investigation into the USS Iowa accident and
wide-spread cheating at the Naval Academy.
While this debate is not about what happened at the 1991
Tailhook Convention, and I do not want to re-hash that entire
incident, I do think it is appropriate to briefly review what
happened at Tailhook '91 to provide a little background and
put things into context.
According to the Department of Defense Inspector General,
at least 90 indecent sexual assaults took place at the 1991
Tailhook convention. This, though, apparently was nothing.
Tailhook `91 was ``tame'' compared to earlier conventions.
The annual event began in 1956, and rowdy and improper
behavior supposedly culminated at the 1985 convention.
The President of the Tailhook Association warned members in
preparation for the 1991 convention that there had been
problems with ``gang mentality''. It appears that Tailhook
conventions of the past have been tolerated with the notion
of `boys will be boys'--a notion which simply can no longer
be permitted in today's armed forces.
Most of the sexual assaults at Tailhook '91 centered around
a ``gauntlet'' on the third floor of the hotel, in which
women would walk through a hallway and be sexually assaulted
by scores of men lining the hallway.
The DoD Inspector General is quite specific in detailing
the various types of assaults that took place. Let me quote
the report: ``When a female entered the gauntlet, the
participants would surround her and touch, pat and grab her
while she was funnelled down the hall.''
On numerous occasions, the DoD Inspector General sites
instances where women would walk through the gauntlet and be
``groped and molested''. And if someone resisted, it got
worse: ``... the more the women fought the men who were
attacking them, the more the males attacked.''
Further, many witnesses described women who had articles of
clothing ripped or removed as they went through the gauntlet,
and of men grabbing women's breast, buttocks and crotch. One
female Navy officer said she felt as if the men were trying
to rape her.
There were other indecent actions commonplace at the
Tailhook convention, which I do not want to mention on the
Senate floor.
I cannot imagine any officer permitting these activities to
occur, not to mention participating in these activities. But,
apparently many did.
In addition to the fact that many naval officers lied to
investigators and tried to obstruct the DoD Inspector General
investigation, probably the most disturbing aspect of the
1991 Tailhook convention is that many in the Navy still
believe that nothing inappropriate happened.
According to the DoD Inspector General, many officers
stated that the events at Tailhook '91 were ``no big deal''.
One officer said that ``it is an annual tradition at Tailhook
conventions to harass women physically and verbally in the
hallway . . .'' He implied that any women present would be
labeled a ``slut'' and said that they have been assaulting
women ``since cavemen days''.
In other words any woman present should expect this
treatment. Should the Senate put an imprimatur on this kind
of leadership? I think not.
After the incidents, some of those assaulted began to
report what occurred. The convention was followed by a
botched Navy investigation--involving both the Naval
Investigative Service and the Navy Inspector General--in
which the Navy simply could not investigate itself and assign
responsibility for what occurred. In the end, the Department
of Defense Inspector General was asked to provide a detailed
report of the entire incident and subsequent Navy
investigation.
Still, almost four years since the infamous Tailhook
convention took place, not one single person has been
convicted of any crime. 28 officers received non-judicial
punishment, 32 officers received non-punitive counseling, and
51 cases received no action.
The then-Secretary of the Navy was forced to resign. Only
three mid-level Admirals received any form of punishment--a
``Secretarial Letter of Censure''--and one of those admirals
retired with one star lower than the highest rank in which he
served.
The question this body has before it today, though, does
not involve the entire Tailhook incident or the investigation
that followed. Nor does it involve the investigation into the
specifics of the USS Iowa explosion or the cheating scandal
at the Naval Academy (though these do raise the question of a
pattern of botched investigations within the Navy).
The question we have before us today relates specifically
to Admiral Kelso and his retirement.
Admiral Kelso was the Chief of Naval Operations--the
highest ranking naval officer--during the 1991 Tailhook
convention and the subsequent investigation. In addition,
Admiral Kelso was present at the Las Vegas Hilton during the
1991 Tailhook convention. It happened on his watch, and he
was there.
I believe there are two, independent issues that must be
addressed. First, what was Admiral Kelso's personal
involvement with and/or knowledge of the indecent activities
occurring at Tailhook '91? And second, what was Admiral
Kelso's leadership responsibility as the Chief of Naval
Operations?
I realize that Admiral Kelso's personal involvement and
knowledge of the activities which occurred at Tailhook '91
has been in dispute. The DoD Inspector General found ``no
evidence that Admiral Kelso has specific knowledge of the
improper incidents and events that took place'' and goes on
to say that they ``believe'' Admiral Kelso did not witness
any indecent acts.
However, I find a recent ruling by a Navy judge, Captain
William Vest, to be quite compelling. In a 59-page ruling,
Judge Vest states:
``Based on the convincing nature of the testimonial
evidence and the many corroborating facts and circumstances
surrounding such evidence, this court finds ADM Kelso is in
error in his assertion that he did not visit the patio area
on Saturday evening. This court specifically finds ADM Kelso
visited the third deck patio at some time during the evening
hours of 07 September 1991. This court further finds ADM
Kelso was exposed to incidents of inappropriate behavior
while on the patio on Saturday evening, including public
nudity and leg shaving activities.''
Judge Vest cites numerous credible eyewitness in accounts
personally linking Admiral Kelso to indecent activities at
the Tailhook convention.
Even if one discredits Judge Vest's charges and assumes
that Admiral Kelso was not present when indecent acts and
sexual assaults occurred, I find it hard to believe that the
Chief of Naval Operations did not know what occurred at
Tailhook conventions, past and present.
As both the DoD Inspector General report and Judge Vest's
ruling assert, the Tailhook convention--an annual event since
1956--was notorious throughout the ranks of the navy and was
an officially sanctioned Navy event.
The DoD Inspector General report states that the Navy
``knowingly supported and encouraged'' attendance at the
Tailhook convention. And, the report says, ``Clearly, some of
the activities that took place at Tailhook conventions were
known within the Navy to be incompatible with Navy policies
dealing with sexual harassment and abuse of alcohol.''
Judge Vest, in his ruling, supports this assertion when he
states:
``This court finds that this quantum of information
concerning the symposium's notorious social reputation prior
to Tailhook 1991 * * * could not have escaped ADM Kelso's
attention. It served to place him and other high ranking
officers on notice as to the social climate at past
Tailhook Symposiums, and the kind of social environment to
expect at Tailhook '91.''
After carefully weighing Judge Vest's ruling and the DoD
Inspector General report and other information, I believe the
question of Admiral Kelso's personal involvement at the 1991
Tailhook convention and his knowledge of the types of
activities for which Tailhook conventions were notorious,
remain in question. Unfortunately, due to Admiral Kelso's
decision to retire early, this question will probably never
be fully answered.
The second question that must be addressed deals with
leadership, responsibility and accountability.
One of the first questions I asked myself was how could
something like this take place in one of the most
professional and highly regarded military institutions in the
world.
Well, as the DoD Inspector General report states,
``Tailhook '91 is the culmination of a long-term failure of
leadership in naval aviation.''
Not only was the indecent activity not stopped when it was
occurring, but it appears that these activities were commonly
known to occur. As the report states, the ``heavy drinking,
the gauntlet, widespread promiscuity were common, and were
part of the allure of Tailhook conventions * * *.''
Regardless of Admiral Kelso's personal involvement with or
knowledge of the incidents at Tailhook '91, I believe that
the Chief of Naval Operations--as the highest ranking naval
officer--has ultimate command responsibility for what
occurred at the 1991 convention.
Let me quote from the DoD Inspector General report:
``The military is a hierarchical organization, which
requires and is supposed to ensure accountability at every
level. As one moves up through the chain of command, the
focus on accountability narrows to fewer individuals. At the
highest levels of the command structure, accountability
becomes less dependent on actual knowledge of the specific
actions of subordinates. At some point, `the buck stops here'
applies.''
Well, I believe that the buck stops at the top.
In the case of Tailhook 1991, with such widespread
misconduct that had occurred for years and years, I believe
that the buck stops with the head civilian and military
leader of the Navy: the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief
of Naval Operations.
Then-Secretary of the Navy Garrett resigned in June 1992
after a botched Navy investigation into the Tailhook affair.
Admiral Kelso, the Chief of Naval Operations, has only
received a non-punitive ``Letter of Caution'' for his lack of
leadership.
I believe that the Chief of Naval Operations must be held
accountable for what occurs on his watch. As The Navy Policy
Book (which Admiral Kelso helped write) states,
``Accountability is critical to our success. . . . In
leadership positions, we bear responsibility for the actions
of our subordinates.''
I do not want to question Admiral Kelso's 38-year Navy
career, beginning with his days in the Naval Academy to his
command of the Sixth Fleet. I am sure that anyone who becomes
Chief of Naval Operations certainly has had a long and
distinguished career.
However, I believe it would be a mistake to confirm Admiral
Kelso's retirement with four-stars. The Senate would be
overlooking the entire Tailhook incident, Judge Vest's ruing,
and exonerating Admiral Kelso of any responsibility or
accountability for what occurred at the 1991 Tailhook
convention.
And, what signal will the Senate's action send to the men
and women of today's Navy and our entire armed forces? Does
the Senate condone sexual abuse and indecent activity? What
about the victims of Tailhook? Is this just business as usual
in the United States Senate? Is it okay for lower ranking
officers to be held accountable, but not top admirals? Will
the Senate's inaction simply reinforce the culture of sexual
harassment still prevalent in the military today? And, will
boys continue to be boys?
I believe the Senate must send a clear message throughout
the ranks of the military--from the newly enlisted private
and seaman, to the highest ranking generals and admirals.
That message is simple: sexual abuse, misconduct, harassment,
and other forms of lewd conduct and indecent activity will
not be tolerated in today's military. And, there will be
accountability at all ranks.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Admiral
Kelso to retire with four stars.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager.
The Chair would just note that the Senator from Texas was on her feet
first, and it would be the intention of the Chair----
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a unanimous-consent,
please?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield for that.
Order of Procedure
Mr. EXON. In consultation with both sides of the issue, we are now
proposing to offer a unanimous consent request that I will pose at this
time. We would like to enter into a unanimous consent request for the
remaining debate on this issue with 1\1/2\ hours of time to be
controlled by the Senator from Maryland, 1 hour of time to be
controlled by the Chair for a total of 2\1/2\ hours, with a vote
scheduled not before 7:30.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I would be interested to
know why there would be 1 hour on one side for who would be managing
the other side. I understand it might be the Chair. Why is not someone
designated on the other side of this debate and--let me finish my
question, if I might--and I need at least 10 to 15 minutes before I
would agree to a unanimous consent request.
Mr. EXON. In response to the Senator, I will simply say that, as I
stated in the unanimous consent request, it would be those in
opposition who would have 1\1/2\ hours to be controlled by the Senator
from Maryland, and those in support would have 1 hour controlled by the
Senator from Nebraska. I had already scheduled those Senators who had
indicated to me that they wanted to speak. I have the Senator down for
5 minutes. I would be glad to extend that time. How much time does he
wish?
Mr. McCAIN. Fifteen minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Nebraska would yield, as part of
1\1/2\ hours, we wish to acknowledge that we have reserved 30 minutes
for the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter; 10 minutes for the
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison; and 5 minutes for the Senator from
Kansas, Senator Kassebaum as well as 15 minutes for Senator Byrd, 5
minutes for Senator Conrad, and some time for wrap-up.
Mr. STEVENS. In behalf of leadership, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, our debate this afternoon should not be construed as
an assault on the U.S. military, on the Navy, or on any individual in
the armed services. Instead, I believe this is a debate involving two
very different approaches to a common objective. I am convinced that
all parties to this discussion are intent on pursuing improvement in
the reputation and the record of the U.S. Navy.
Last week, I outlined my concerns over this nomination at the Armed
Services Committee hearing. Some have said I am trying to hold Admiral
Kelso accountable for what happened at Tailhook in 1991. That is not
the case. I spent hours reading all of the reports on the Tailhook
investigation. That study led me to conclude that there are three areas
of concern. I believe Admiral Kelso is responsible for two of those.
Area one: Before the convention. It is clear that abuses of alcohol
and degradation of women were part of the regular activity at the
Tailhook convention, and there was no secret about that. In fact, many
of these actions had reached ritual or traditional status. For the
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to attend and
lend their stature to such activity was clearly wrong.
Area two: During the convention. There has been a dispute about
whether Admiral Kelso actually saw any of the debauchery or unseemly
behavior. He says he did not. I believe him. I do not hold him
accountable for actual knowledge of the events there.
Then we come to the third area: After the convention. Lt. Paula
Coughlin stepped up immediately to reveal what happened to her and
other Navy women and civilians. There was a studied effort by officers
in senior responsible positions to ignore or overlook offenses at
Tailhook, followed by an equally serious failure to follow up on
complaints from victims of the affair, including from Navy officers and
personnel.
Finally, there was a complete breakdown of the naval investigatory
process that resulted in the Department of Defense inspector general
stepping in to conclude the inquiry.
Active interference in the investigation by senior officers was the
rule, not the exception. Even Admiral Kelso's defenders admit a failure
of leadership on his part before and after Tailhook '91.
But there is another issue beyond conduct at the convention. Whenever
we have a mistake or accident or incompetence that leads to an
unfortunate incident, we have the responsibility to investigate fully,
to ascertain the facts and, most of all, to take whatever steps are
necessary to prevent similar problems in the future. Only by a full
investigation, with the chips falling where they may, will we be able
to learn from our mistakes.
Internal investigations, in the military or anywhere else, are never
easy. They will produce the truth, however, only when the individual at
the top decrees, in no uncertain terms, that he or she insists that the
truth be found. It is no secret to anyone that few officers believed
the Navy was serious about getting to the bottom of Tailhook '91. In
fact, officer after officer stymied the investigation, refusing to
produce witnesses and tolerating lying by others.
This all occurred on Admiral Kelso's watch. I believe Admiral Kelso
is a patriotic man, an officer of integrity and honesty. But, in my
view, his excellent 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 the world.
The proper standard in a similar situation was described by Secretary
Perry himself last week, following the tragic downing of two U.S. Army
helicopters over northern Iraq. Secretary Perry said: ``As the
Secretary, I feel the full responsibility for this action, and * * * I
will be accountable for following up on it.'' The individual at the top
must take responsibility, because it is his actions that will prevent
future accidents like this from happening, and it is what will save
future lives in the U.S. Army and our helicopter pilots.
I am a great believer in our military and its great history and
traditions. I want the best of those standards to be reinforced and
bolstered, and I have concluded that the best way to do so is to insist
upon full accountability by those honored with positions of leadership
in our armed services. For that reason, I believe we should not give
our consent to the request for Admiral Kelso to be placed on the
retired list in his current grade.
What I want for the future of the Navy is the best. In expanding the
role of women in our Navy, we must offer them equality of opportunity
and, most of all, basic respect so they can fulfill their own potential
for themselves and for our country. We cannot settle for less.
I fully understand that we must now focus on the future. I have met
with Admiral Boorda, who will be the next Chief of Naval Operations,
and I have discussed these issues with him. I believe he is committed
to equality of opportunity for women, and to achieving ethics and high
morale for all of our Navy men and women.
When I voted in committee last week, I did not know if I would be the
lone vote. I did not know if I would be the lone vote in the U.S.
Senate. But I did what I thought was right under the circumstances at
the time. Each person must make up his or her own mind.
I understand that there are those among my colleagues here who share
my goal of strengthening our services, but they will differ with me on
the appropriate method of achieving those goals. Our military today is
facing a very difficult transition period, and it is vital that we in
Congress demand the highest quality of leadership. We must have the
highest quality for our armed services, to remain the greatest
superpower in the world. I think that goal is best reached by saying no
to this nomination.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Chair heard the Senator
from Arizona first. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I noticed with interest the dramatic
presence of some of our colleagues from the other body at the beginning
of this debate. I would say to our colleagues who seek to punish the
captain for a scandal which occurred on his watch, a scandal he did not
cause, did not participate in, and tried his best to correct--I would
say to our guests from the other body and Members here who, like the
Senator from California, was formerly a Member of that body: Will you
demand the leadership of the House be held accountable for the scandals
that have occurred on their watch?
I must say, I cannot remember any one of the Members of the House who
joined us here today calling for the Speaker or the majority leader of
the other body to be punished for the House bank scandal or the House
post office scandal. Perhaps our House colleagues hold themselves,
their leaders, and their institution to lesser standards than they hold
Admiral Kelso, the U.S. Navy, and the Members of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I do not intend to take a long time because this is a
very unpleasant chore for me. I would like to note that the Women
Officers Professional Association, an organization of 400 commissioned
and noncommissioned women officers who serve in the U.S. Navy, feel
differently than those women Members who have spoken here today on the
floor.
This letter is addressed to the Honorable Sam Nunn, chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Dear Chairman Nunn: On behalf of the board of the Women
Officers Professional Association (WOPA), I express our
wholehearted support for Admiral Frank Kelso's well earned
right to retire at his present rank of full admiral.
Admiral Kelso should be congratulated for his leadership,
not criticized. He, more than any other person, changed the
Navy by eliminating the gender-based prejudices and
restrictions which previously limited the contributions of
Navy women. The world will learn from our example.
It is appalling that some people judge Admiral Kelso by
whatever did or did not happen at the 1991 Tailhook
convention. The important lesson of this terrible event is
that it was Admiral Kelso, as the Chief of Naval Operations,
who forced the Navy to change for the good because of it; it
will never happen again. We, the professional women of the
Navy, are beyond Tailhook.
The WOPA is a predominately female organization of almost
400 commissioned and noncommissioned officers. We have seen
our members become part of the U.S.S. Eisenhower's ship's
company, and report that the Navy is the only service with
multiple female flag officers.
Admiral Kelso will be remembered with much respect by the
Navy's Women. Please do not dishonor him by rank reduction.
Sincerely,
Jayne Hornstein,
Lieutenant Commander, USN,
Vice President for Programs.
Here is a letter from the Department of Defense, Defense Advisory
Committee on Women in the Services. Mr. President, this is a committee
that is appointed by the President of women who are knowledgeable,
experienced, and seriously involved in the multitude of issues
involving women in the military and various military family issues.
On April 8, 1994, Wilma Powell, the 1994 chairperson of the Defense
Advisory committee on Women in the Services, known as DACOWITS, sent
the following letter to Admiral Kelso.
Dear Admiral Kelso: Congratulations on the occasion of your
retirement. Your many years of commitment and dedication to
men and women in the United States Navy is very much
appreciated by former and current members of the Defense
Advisory Committee on Women in The Services (DACOWITS). As
Ellen Murdoch and I mentioned to you at our meeting in
December 1993, DACOWITS is extremely gratified with the
recent policy changes that will allow military women to be
more fully utilized in the Armed Services. We are
particularly pleased with your vision and leadership that has
opened opportunities to Navy Women. In particular, we
appreciate your efforts in the late 1980's to open Combat
Logistics Forces Ships to women which was a DACOWITS
supported initiative. Under your leadership, more women have
been selected for operational command, flag rank and major
shore command that at any other time in the Navy's history.
We share the view of many military women that you are the one
individual who has done more to further opportunities for
women than anyone since Admiral Zumwalt in the early 1970's.
While ``quality of life issues'' are not strictly ``women's
issues'', they are of critical concern to the members of
DACOWITS. We would like to express our appreciation for your
commitment to quality of life issues. During your leadership,
you have worked to secure additional funding for quality of
life programs including child care, medical care and Morale,
Welfare and Recreation Facilities. We recognize and
appreciate your aggressive approach to increase and retain
minority officers and enlisted personnel and the vigor you
displayed in ensuring that peacetime deployment lengths were
controlled to the maximum extent, thereby allowing Sailors to
spend as much time as possible with families.
While the Committee regrets the incidents of Tailhook, we
accept this as a watershed which focused attention on a
substantive problem, and which provided the impetus for
discussion and growth. Although DACOWITS continues to be
concerned about sexual harassment throughout the Armed
Services, the zero tolerance policy initiated for the Navy
under your leadership makes a statement about your position
on this very undesirable unacceptable behavior. The mandatory
sexual harassment prevention training for all Sailors is an
important component in eradicating this despicable behavior.
As a proponent of military readiness, DACOWITS believes
harassment or discrimination of any kind, i.e. gender or
racial negatively impacts military readiness.
Again, on behalf of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women
in The Services and Women of the American Armed Forces, I
would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for your
visionary leadership, to wish you all the best and to say
``God Bless'' you in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Wilma D. Powell,
1994 Chair, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in The
Services (DACOWITS).
Mr. President, there is very little I can add to the Women Officers'
Professional Association, professional military women with years and
years of military service who have actually served on Admiral Kelso's
watch, and the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, who
work day to day on issues affecting women servicemembers. There is very
little I can add, except to highlight the following facts.
Mr. President, I was the first elected official in either body of
Congress to go to the floor of the Senate and express outrage and
indignation at the events that took place at Tailhook. I immediately
made a statement on the floor of the Senate condemning the abuses and
demanded an investigation and full and complete cooperation of the
Defense Department in seeing that those who were guilty of such evil
transgressions were punished. The first and immediate respondent to
that was Admiral Kelso. The first action taken in the Department of
Defense was Admiral Kelso's immediate action calling this type of
behavior that had occurred at Tailhook unacceptable and would not be
tolerated--period.
I urge my colleagues to not simply accept the word of people about
what Admiral Kelso did or did not know about the events of Tailhook,
because there may be some difference of opinion. But, again, facts are
facts.
And what does the inspector general of the Department of Defense say.
He says:
During our investigation we were unable to find any
credible evidence that Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge
of the improper incidents and events that took place. We
reached that conclusion based on numerous witness interviews.
We found individuals who believed they saw Admiral Kelso on
the third floor during that infamous Saturday night. However,
based on all the testimony, we believe that he was not
present on Saturday and that those who believed they saw him
are mistaken. We continue to believe that Admiral Kelso had
no specific knowledge of the indecent activity that took
place. We have not had a chance to examine the entire court
record, however we are in the process of comparing testimony
from the court proceedings with information from our
investigation files. We have identified several discrepancies
in the court's opinion that call into question the factual
basis for the court's conclusion that Admiral Kelso had
specific and detailed knowledge of those events and the
implication that he lied to Federal investigators and the
court when he testified that he did not have such knowledge.
In addition, it should be noted that Admiral Kelso's
conduct during our investigation was beyond reproach. He
offered his assistance in making himself and other senior
witnesses available and ensured that the Navy provided
``logistical'' support and related assistance. Additionally,
we found no evidence either testimonial or documentary that
Admiral Kelso sought to thwart the Navy's internal
investigation of the Tailhook matter. In short, his conduct
was certainly not what one would expect from a person in
authority who had a lot to lose from a thorough public airing
of the facts.
Unfortunately, clearly Admiral Kelso did have a lot to lose because
of the way that this situation is being treated.
On March 30, 1994, with respect to Admiral Kelso's presence at
Tailhook, again from the inspector general of the Department of
Defense--no higher authority, no higher authority to investigate
anything that goes on in the Department of Defense than the inspector
general. And this particular inspector general, by the way, has a
superb reputation, Mr. Derek J. Vander Schaaf.
We concluded that Admiral Kelso was not on the patio
Saturday evening and did not visit the hospitality suites at
any time. Further, we were unable to find any credible
evidence that Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge of the
improper incidents and events that took place. Finally, we
found no evidence that Admiral Kelso sought to thwart the
Navy's internal investigation into the Tailhook matter.
With respect to Admiral Kelso's presence on the patio
Saturday evening, virtually all the key witnesses who said
they saw Admiral Kelso on the patio Saturday evening stated
that they saw him in the company of Secretary Garrett, Vice
Admiral Dunleavy, and/or Vice Admiral Fetterman. Each of
these individuals, as well as other witnesses who were in a
position to know Admiral Kelso's whereabouts, consistently
stated that Admiral Kelso was not on the patio Saturday
evening.
Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague from Arizona yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. No, I will not until I finish my statement, and then I
will yield for questions from him.
I think it might be of interest also for the Record to note that
during his 38-year military career, among many distinguished
assignments both in combat and in peace, Admiral Kelso received the
Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal
with two gold stars, Legion of Merit with three gold stars in lieu of
subsequent awards, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal,
Navy Achievement Medal, Navy Unit Commendation with two bronze stars in
lieu of subsequent awards, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy
Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal with two bronze
stars in lieu of third award, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.
A distinguished career, Mr. President, a distinguished career of a
decent, honorable, and widely respected person.
I might add that the DACOWITS members are a group of approximately 36
women--mostly women--who have many significant and respected
credentials as far as the issue of the military is concerned. I have
dealt directly with many of the members over the years and know them to
be heavily involved in issues relevent to military life, including
women in the military.
Mr. President, I will conclude, because I find this such an
unpleasant and distasteful exercise.
There has not been a lot said about what will be the impact on the
military, the men and women of the military, of allowing Admiral Kelso
to retire at a four-star rank, his involvement or noninvolvement with
the Tailhook, how he handled it, what he saw or did not see, et cetera.
I can tell you that there are men and women throughout the Navy
today, some of whom have access to C-SPAN, are watching and paying
attention to these proceedings. I will tell you what they are thinking,
because I know them, I know them better than anybody in this body. I
know them well.
What they are thinking is: Here is a person who served for 38 years,
for whom there is no evidence, according to the inspector general of
the Department of Defense, for having done anything wrong, a person who
served honorably and with distinction in war and in peace. And now, in
a precedent shattering move, some Members of the U.S. Senate, because
of what happened on his watch, seek to reduce him in rank and humiliate
him and force him from the service under a cloud which will stain and
destroy his reputation for the rest of his life.
These men and women in our Armed Forces are wondering whether they
indeed might be a victim of this same kind of situation. Maybe they
might serve for 38 years with honor and distinction, reach the highest
position attainable in the U.S. Navy, have something go wrong that at
least in their mind they had no involvement with, and did their very
best--and be faced with the same humiliation. The record is clear that
Admiral Kelso did his very best to try and remedy these terrible,
tragic events that took place at Tailhook. What is to be accomplished
by the Senate's piling on at this late date--3 years later? The message
has already been sent by Admiral Kelso's early resignation.
I also think that they will be impressed by the Women Officers
Professional Association, over 400 commissioned and noncommissioned
women in the military, and their view of Admiral Kelso. Many of these
women have worked with him on a daily basis.
They may also be impressed with the Department of Defense Advisory
Committee on Women in the Services--highly qualified women who deal
with issues affecting the military and professional military service
members on a day-to-day basis. And then they will wonder whether a
military career is the proper course for them to pursue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yes, it is a distasteful discussion, but
I remind my colleagues it is the result of a distasteful experience of
over 80 women that lead us to this today.
I stand today to urge every one of my colleagues to listen carefully
and thoughtfully to this debate and ask themselves whether the U.S.
Senate should confer this extremely high honor on retiring Adm. Frank
Kelso, an honor received by relatively few people in the history of
this Nation.
There is no doubt that Admiral Kelso served a distinguished military
career. He is the Chief of Naval Operations. Without our action today,
he can retire with two stars and a pension of $5,600 per month. Our job
is to decide if Admiral Kelso should be given a monthly pension
supplement of $1,100 and two additional stars.
This is the question before the Senate: Did Admiral Kelso serve to a
higher standard? Did he serve above all reproach? Should thousands of
young men and women coming behind him use him as a role model in their
own lives as they shape their military careers?
As U.S. Senators, we cannot ignore the tarnish of Tailhook in today's
debate.
I have reviewed carefully the documents and history that bring us to
today's debate. There is no doubt the stories and the secrets of the
Tailhook conventions are well known, and beyond comparison in abhorrent
behavior.
We talk a lot in this body about moral decay, taxpayers' funds and
personal responsibility. Tailhook 1991 had it all. The Navy paid for
transportation for officers to attend. Naval personnel on official time
actively recruited officers to attend in numbers which were double that
which could be accommodated at the official--as opposed to social--
functions of the convention. The tales of the gauntlet are well
documented and not disputed.
No one has described the conduct exhibited toward women at those
events as that to which you would want your daughter, sister, mother,
or wife subjected.
Young women and men who attended Tailhook had no way to defend
themselves. There was no one in a leadership position who said, ``You
are my responsibility. You will be safe.''
For more than a decade before the infamous 1991 Tailhook Convention,
alarm bells were sounding throughout the Pentagon and the Navy on the
issue of sexual harassment.
According to Naval Judge William Vest:
Despite the worthy official purpose [of Tailhook], the
evidence is replete with references to the annual symposium's
long-standing and widely-known reputation for wild partying,
heavy drinking and lewd behavior.
Beginning in 1986, some naval officials had begun to document their
fears about the Tailhook conventions, aware as they were that the trend
had been for these meetings to degenerate into drunken brawls where
inappropriate behavior by Navy personnel was commonplace.
Was Admiral Kelso out-of-the-loop? Did his staff not tell him about
past problems? While he was at the convention, did he see nothing, hear
nothing?
The evidence suggests that would have been nearly impossible. So well
known was the climate at Tailhook that, by 1991, the president of the
Tailhook Association wrote to squadron commanders and urged them to
guard against ``late night gang mentality.''
Year after year, however, little was done to correct the situation.
As Judge Vest stated:
It should go without saying that this behavior should have
never been permitted to start; having started, should have
swiftly ended; and that due to years of permissive
leadership, the situation had gotten completely out-of-hand.
Admiral Kelso was at the very top of that ``permissive leadership.''
It was under his charge these events occurred. It was under his
leadership.
The U.S. Senate cannot say with one voice ``we do not condone sexual
harassment,'' and then, look the other way and reward those who are in
charge when harassment and abuse occur.
I fear that the message from the Navy and the Pentagon has not
changed, and that many sailors, soldiers and officers still consider
the whole Tailhook incident to be a joke. Women have testified before
Congress that the message to all ranks is ``you can get away with
sexual abuse and harassment in the U.S. military.''
It is very discouraging to talk with young women and hear them say
that although a lot of adults talk about the evils of sexual harassment
and violence, no one backs that message with actions. No one pays.
We continue to send the message that violence will go unpunished.
Abuse will be overlooked. Harassment is OK.
Among the most prominent public cases that have been aired over the
past few years, those who have been accused continue to receive top
salaries and remain in high public offices. Nothing seems to change.
Any mother or father who sends their son or daughter to serve in the
military should be assured at a minimum that the commanders-in-charge
will not allow behavior such as this to occur. And, if it does occur,
they should be assured at a minimum that it will be investigated to the
fullest extent. And, if their son or daughter is the victim of
harassment or abuse, they should be assured at a minimum, they will not
be the ones to suffer the consequences.
To vote to reward and honor Admiral Kelso today with an additional
two stars would continue to send the wrong message.
I want my daughter and thousands of our country's young women and men
to see service in the military as an outstanding career opportunity, as
a place where those who serve with dignity and honor are rewarded--and
most importantly, as somewhere they can succeed without becoming the
victims of abuse while those at the top look the other way.
This is what bothers me most. I have to face young women and men
across my State who say to me, ``I want to be an astronaut, or an
aviator, or a U.S. Senator.'' I tell them these are great goals. They
are difficult and rewarding jobs that come with a great deal of
responsibility.
What do I tell them about Tailhook if they dream of a career in the
Armed Forces? Do I say to young women, ``Go ahead, be all that you can
be, but don't expect the top person to protect you if you get in a
situation that gets out of control--even if she or he is present at the
time.''
It is appalling to me that 30 admirals, 2 generals, and 3 Reserve
generals attended Tailhook 1991 and not one of those individuals
exercised the responsibility of their command. And Admiral Kelso was at
the top of that chain of command. So much authority; so little
leadership.
I urge my colleagues to remember why we are present at this time. The
voters continue to call for change, and they are watching. Part of that
change is sending a strong message that we do not approve an action
simply because that is the way it has always been done.
My colleague from Georgia earlier stated that if we vote against four
stars today we are sending a different signal and setting a different
standard with regard to these awards. That is exactly what we should
do. It is time for a change.
In closing, as we exercise our constitutional responsibilities to
advise and consent on the retirement status of Admiral Kelso, it is to
the American people that we will ultimately have to answer. We must be
able to tell them that those who are honored by this body have passed
the highest test: They are the figures to whom we, as parents, can
point with pride and say we want our children to grow up just like
them. Admiral Kelso did not pass that test.
Thank you.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I pose a unanimous-consent request that we
have been working on for some time now.
I ask unanimous consent that the following time limitations apply to
the remainder of the debate on the motion regarding Admiral Kelso: 90
minutes for opponents, under the control of Senator Mikulski or her
designee, 30 minutes of which will be under Senator Specter's control;
60 minutes for the proponents of the motion, under the control of
Senator Exon or his designee, with the following Senators to be
recognized for the following time limitations out of Senator Exon's
time: Senator Mathews, 5 minutes; Senator Stevens, 20 minutes; Senator
Warner, 10 minutes, with the remainder of the time scheduled to the
Senator under his control or his designee; that at the conclusion or
the yielding back of time, the Senate, without any intervening action
or debate, vote on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed,
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that
the Senate return to legislative session.
I will add here, for the understanding of all--I believe it is the
understanding--that in any event, the rollcall vote will not occur
before 7:35 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to amplify the Senator's unanimous-
consent request, the opposition requests 90 minutes, 30 of which is to
be controlled by Senator Specter; 15 minutes for Senator Byrd; 10
minutes for Senator Kassebaum; 10 minutes for Senator Metzenbaum; 5
minutes for Senator Conrad; 10 minutes for Senator Boxer; and 5 minutes
for myself.
Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. This Senator simply does wish to speak for 5 minutes in
opposition and did not total up all those minutes, but they sounded
suspiciously like they were all occupied, I say to the Senator from
Maryland. If he can be recognized for 5 minutes in due course, he would
appreciate it; otherwise, I suspect he is going to have to object.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Acknowledging the request of the Senator from
Washington, we hotlined this and had not received word that the Senator
from Washington had wished to speak. Senator Specter wished to speak
for 20 minutes, and we have added an additional 10. Will the Senator
from Pennsylvania yield some time to----
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond, I will be glad to yield
5 minutes of my 30 to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Then this Senator has no objection.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. EXON. I have no objection to so amending the unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on this date of the record, I am at a
loss to understand the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the testimony of the
Secretary of the Navy in recommending four stars for Admiral Kelso,
because the report of the general court-martial judge is very explicit
in finding the facts contrary to the sworn testimony of Admiral Kelso.
When arguments have been advanced on the floor about the findings of
the inspector general's report, those findings are, on their face, at
variance with what the military judge has outlined and backed up with
very detailed evidence.
I note that the Secretary of Defense said in his prepared statement:
Admiral Kelso could have chosen an additional judicial
forum to resolve conflicts between the military judge and the
inspector general's conclusions.
The Secretary of Defense goes on to point out that Admiral Kelso
chose, rather, to spare the Navy yet another drawn-out hearing with
attendant costs and distractions. But what has happened is there has
been a drawn-out Senate proceeding, first in the Armed Services
Committee and now on the floor, to try to figure out the facts.
Had Admiral Kelso chosen the judicial forum, that body would have
taken into account the very exhaustive opinion and finding of fact by
the military judge running some 59 single-spaced pages filed by Capt.
William T. Vest, Jr., circuit military judge, with very abbreviated
documents which have been filed by the inspector general.
When my staff requested the inspector general's report on Admiral
Kelso, my staff was advised that it was not public, which was a curious
response to a Senator who has to vote on an important issue. This is an
important issue because it involves the integrity of an admiral and it
involves the integrity of the court-martial system.
Secretary of the Navy Dalton said in his prepared testimony before
the Armed Services Committee:
Even the appearance of command influence over military
courts must be avoided.
As I read that statement, I wonder how Secretary Dalton explains his
conclusion which contradicts the military court or explains the
conclusion of the Secretary of Defense which contradicts the military
court. What the Senate is being asked to do today is to approve the
Armed Services report, which does not make any effort to reconcile or
to explain why the military judge was wrong and why the very brief
summary statements of the inspector general are correct.
I read the memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from the inspector
general dated February 11, 1994, in which he comes to the following
conclusion:
During our investigation, we were unable to find any
credible evidence that Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge
of the improper incidents and the events that took place.
Then farther on the first page of a 1\1/3\-page memorandum, the
inspector general notes:
We have not had a chance to examine the entire court
record. However, we are in the process of comparing testimony
from the court proceedings with the information from our
investigation files.
It is amazing to me that anyone would make a conclusion of the
absence of credible evidence, acknowledging on the same page that they
have not examined the entire court record.
There was an effort to cure that with a later memorandum on March 30,
1994, which says that the inspector general has since reviewed all of
the evidence now available. It still raises the question in my mind
about the preliminary memorandum of February 11, and I wonder as to the
procedures used by the inspector general.
I am at a loss to understand the inspector general's conclusion that
there is no credible evidence, when the inspector general does not
contradict, at least as to the Friday evening event, the testimony
which is detailed on page 12 of the military judge's opinion about the
testimony of Captain Beck, which was corroborated by Lieutenant.
Commander Fordham.
There was one other evidentiary piece noted that someone had not seen
Admiral Kelso in the area, but that hardly undercuts the forceful,
explicit testimony of Captain Beck that Admiral Kelso was well within
view of a major incident, and that Captain Beck talked to Admiral
Kelso, and that Admiral Kelso in effect acknowledged what was
happening.
Now, it surprises me in the course of our consideration of this
matter that so little weight is given to the detailed opinion of the
military judge. One of my colleagues was in the Chamber saying that
Senator Specter was going to present some details and inquired,
yielding for a question. I raised the question about how anybody could
say this is not credible evidence on the Friday night incident.
Admiral Kelso concedes he was present, says he did not see any of the
events in question. One witness testifies positively that Admiral Kelso
was on the site of the event, talked about the event. Another witness
corroborates the event occurred. Is that not credible evidence? I have
had some experience in the field of evidence, and that certainly is
credible evidence.
On the Saturday event, the military judge notes at page 16 of his 59-
page opinion, single spaced opinion:
The Court further finds that many of the eyewitnesses gave
detailed accounts of their observations of Admiral Kelso's
presence on the patio on Saturday evening. Notwithstanding
disparities regarding times, exact times, most address the
specific locations.
Now, perhaps someone could say, if there is some variation as to
exact times or modes of dress or specific locations, that raises some
question; but not really. The testimony does not become incredible
because of such minor deviations, or at least I do not understand on
the face of this record, if the inspector general makes that
contention, that we ought not see why he makes it, what the facts are
and what leads him to that result.
The military judge went on to note some ambivalence at pages 22 and
23, stating:
The court further finds that a number of the witnesses who
testified were ambivalent regarding their prior statements to
DCIS investigators. Some of these witnesses admitted to being
personally intimidated in knowing that Admiral Kelso denied
ever being on the patio during his in-court testimony.
However, the majority of these witnesses confirmed the
accuracy of their prior statements. These witnesses include
Rear Admiral Paul Parcells, Deputy Commander Naval Forces
Central Command----
Not an unsubstantial individual.
Captain Daniel Weyland, USN Retired, Miss Margaret Hendly,
Lt., and more.
Mr. President, I do not know how someone could take a look at that
and come to a conclusion that there was no credible evidence.
The military judge at page 26 then makes a finding that:
Based upon the convincing nature of the testimonial
evidence and the many corroborating facts and circumstances
surrounding such evidence, the Court goes on to find that
Admiral Kelso is in error in his assertion that he did not
visit the patio on Saturday evening. This court specifically
finds that Admiral Kelso visited the third deck patio at some
time prior to the evening hours of 7 September 1991. This
court further finds Admiral Kelso was exposed to incidents of
inappropriate behavior while on the patio on Saturday evening
including public nudity and ``leg-shaving activities''.
The military judge made a further finding at pages 39 and 40 of his
report as follows:
Captain Gutter indicated that Rear Admiral Williams had
also personally briefed Admiral Kelso on the results of the
NIS investigation. During that briefing, according to Captain
Gutter, Admiral Kelso had asked Rear Admiral Williams point
blank, ``Is there anything in your investigation that's going
to place the Secretary on the third floor of Tailhook?'' or
words to that effect.
Rear Admiral Williams responded to the effect, ``I've taken
the pulse of all the agents in the field and there's nothing
out there that's going to implicate the Secretary.'' This
court finds that while this statement expressed a direct
interest in any information linking Secretary Garret to
misconduct that occurred on the third floor, it also signaled
Admiral Kelso's personal concern for any information that
might link him to such conduct.
Now, that is not the voluminous evidence which is quoted before, but
these are all matters which are detailed in the record in a very
specific way. It is my view, Mr. President, that the Senate has a right
to know what the answers to these questions are when we are being asked
to approve a four-star status.
We have a right--and I will pursue the inquiry beyond today--to ask
the inspector general just how he squares that evidence with his
conclusion: ``We are unable to find any credible evidence that Admiral
Kelso had specific knowledge of the improper incidents and events that
took place.''
The proceedings in court have the degree of sanctity which is
recognized by Secretary Dalton in his prepared statement, that even the
appearance of command influence over military courts must be avoided.
Without dealing with the detailed statements of fact, the inspector
general provides us with a very abbreviated statement and does not give
to Senators who have to vote on this issue the information at hand.
I think it is very unfortunate that this matter has reached the
Senate floor, because there is a record here of a naval officer which
is longstanding, and it surprises me that anyone would want to bring
this matter to the Senate floor on the issue of the promotion for two
stars and some additional retirement compensation. Speaking for myself,
I do not see how this body can turn its back on a 59-page detailed
report which stands on this record and stands certainly in the face of
a conclusory statement by the inspector general that there is no
competent evidence.
I personally would prefer to have had the Senate avoid this. I
personally would have preferred to have had a record which would have
supported the four stars for Admiral Kelso. But in good conscience, I
cannot support that kind of a promotion in the face of this record.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield his time to me?
Mr. SPECTER. I do yield. I thank the Senator from Washington. I yield
5 minutes to my colleague from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, nothing is more fundamental to the
doctrine of effective and responsible armed services than command
responsibility. That responsibility finds its way all the way up
through the chain of command, affecting the duties of and
responsibilities of each officer in that chain, but being diminished in
no way whatsoever by the time it reaches the highest military
authority, in this case, the Chief of Naval Operations.
Under those circumstances, Admiral Kelso is ultimately responsible
for the actions and conduct of his inferior officers in the U.S. Navy.
This Senator is impressed with the remarks of his colleague from
Pennsylvania. He is deeply disturbed by the findings of the judge
advocate denoting the denial of the accuracy of those findings, and is
not entirely certain whether or not findings on individual conduct
rather than command responsibility fall into his theory of that command
responsibility.
This Senator would be reluctant, without having studied it far more
deeply, to ground his decision in this matter solely on stating that he
believes Captain Vest as against Admiral Kelso; or for that matter,
vice-versa.
Far closer to the doctrine of chain of command, however, is the
method, the way in which the investigation of Tailhook was conducted--
obviously defective, obviously with a great deal of resistance on the
part of a number of officers, and ultimately resulting in no
significant disciplinary actions being taken against any of the
officers who participated in illegitimate forms of conduct at Tailhook.
For the failure of the effectiveness of that investigation, I suspect
that Admiral Kelso can properly be called to account, and can properly
be said not to have conducted his office of Chief of Naval Operations
in an appropriate fashion. But there are still cloudy circumstances in
connection with that investigation and his responsibility.
What is, however, crystal clear, it seems to this Senator, Mr.
President, is the fact that the one officer who is no longer in the
Navy as a result of Tailhook is Lieutenant Coughlin, the victim, one of
the principal victims, the victim who reported what went on in Tailhook
itself. And that, this Senator finds to be unsupportable with backing
the promotion of Admiral Kelso to full admiral for his retirement.
To have all of the time and money expended with no disciplinary
action beyond the merest of reprimands directed at any of the officers
engaged in the sexual harassment, and to have allowed the overt and
covert attack, as Lieutenant Coughlin wrote in her letter of
resignation to have taken place in such fashion as to have destroyed
her career in the Navy, although she was the victim of these attacks,
is utterly and profoundly wrong, and over her failure Admiral Kelso
clearly had a high degree of control.
Had she been treated appropriately, had the chain of command been
ordered to, required to treat her appropriately, had she been
individually encouraged by the admiral himself that she retain a future
in the Navy, my own views in this case might very well be different.
But I cannot in any way accede to the proposition that Lieutenant
Coughlin loses her career, and that no one else does.
This Senate is required by law to approve of the promotions of flag
officers in the armed services, granted that this, at the time of
retirement, is almost automatic, but it is not quite automatic, and it
should not be. To grant this promotion, to vote for this promotion, is
to approve of all of, including the last part of, Admiral Kelso's
career. That career is, most respectfully, extraordinary and
distinguished. He would not have reached four-star rank even
temporarily without it. But at this point, he must rise or fall on the
way in which he dealt with this matter, either as an individual or----
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator from Washington yield briefly?
Mr. GORTON. Yes.
Mr. NUNN. I listened to some of the Senator's remarks. I have not
heard them all. But I believe the Senator said no one except Lieutenant
Coughlin lost a job. That simply is not correct. The Secretary of Navy
resigned in light of all of this, and then Admiral Dunleavy, who was
the Chief of Naval Aviation, was forced to retire and would have
retired with three stars, but retired with only two stars.
So there has been punishment at the very top. The IG of the Navy was
also given a reprimand. So the Senator's information--I do not know
where he gets that information, but it is simply incorrect.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator stands corrected with respect to Admiral
Dunleavy. The Secretary of the Navy, however, does not wear a uniform.
Under the circumstances in which the Secretary went, it is the view of
this Senator that Admiral Kelso should have gone at the same time and
under the same circumstances.
In any event, with the principal person losing her career in
midcareer, perhaps the only person losing her career in midcareer being
Lieutenant Coughlin, it is the view of this Senator that Admiral Kelso
does not deserve the affirmative promotion in retirement to four-star
admiral which he here seeks.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Navy JAG, Judge Advocate General,
resigned over this. The head of Naval Investigative Service resigned
over this. We held up nominations for months and months, and looked at
every single record of those coming before us, as to their possible
involvement here.
So the Senator's information--I do not know where that information
comes from, but it is simply erroneous. There have been a number of
people at the very top of the Navy whose careers have been completely
disrupted, some of whom have been forced into early retirement, one of
whom was head of aviation and retired on two stars rather than three.
So I do not know where this information is coming from. But the
Record should reflect that it is erroneous.
Mr. STEVENS. Who is controlling the time?
Mr. EXON. How much time would the Senator from Alaska like? I believe
we had the Senator down for 20 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me have about 10 minutes of that right now. We will
see what happens.
Mr. EXON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not know about other Members of the
Senate, but I have dealt with Admiral Kelso now, I think, for at least
14 years; maybe longer. I know that he, at the time of the Tailhook
incident, sought to retire to take the total responsibility as then
CNO.
Secretary Garrett decided to retire, and the admiral was convinced to
stay on board. He had a substantial job to do in downsizing the Navy.
I further want to call the Senate's attention to the fact that this
has developed into an unfortunate situation.
I am the father of three daughters. I know Admiral Kelso to be the
father of two daughters and two sons he is very proud of. One is a
naval lieutenant. One of the daughters is married to a naval
lieutenant.
I do not know about the rest of you. I know this man as a man, and I
have talked to him as a man about Tailhook. He is not an aviator. He
was not there at that event as an aviator participating in Tailhook,
whatever it was that was going on.
I have before me now a statement that was made by the Secretary of
Navy to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is signed by John Dalton
as Secretary of the Navy.
My good friend from California said that we had to understand that
women must be treated with respect. I know of no naval officer who
seeks to treat women in the Navy better than Admiral Kelso. He wanted
to take the responsibility, and now 2 years later, having taken the
responsibility for what he was assigned to do, he was not assigned the
investigation of Tailhook
Three Secretaries of the Navy have looked through his record as
regards to Tailhook, and support this man. Three Secretaries of Defense
looked through the record with regard to Tailhook, and support this
man. Two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have signed off that he was not
in any way responsible for, nor should be connected to, Tailhook. And
now two Presidents have relied upon him as the CNO, and one of them,
President Clinton, has sent to us a request that this man be retired
with four stars, with the rank of admiral.
I think it is unfortunate that people who say they have read, for
instance, the record of the military judge, do not read what the
Secretary of Navy said when he wrote this to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum for the
Secretary of Defense, dated 17 February 1994 be printed in the Record
at the closing of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. STEVENS. I now read from this memorandum for the Secretary of
Defense, dated February 17, 1994:
Investigative files and all systems of records maintained
in this Department referring to this officer by name or
identifying particulars, including Standard Form 278
(Financial Disclosure Report), have been reviewed since last
Senate confirmation, and we find no evidence of conflict of
interest. To our knowledge, there is no pending investigation
of alleged misconduct by this officer.
Admiral Kelso was present at the Tailhook '91 Convention.
He did not engage in any personal wrongdoing with respect to
the planning for Tailhook or conduct at Tailhook.
Accordingly, he was not the subject of any adverse action
concerning those matters. However, because of his
accountability as Chief of Naval Operations for the conduct
of subordinates, he received nonpunitive correspondence in
that regard. As guidance for the future performance of his
duties, that letter described the Secretary of the Navy's
standards concerning the leadership responsibilities of Flag
Officers. By its express terms it was not intended to have
any adverse impact upon Admiral Kelso's retirement in the
grade of admiral at the conclusion of his service in that
grade.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may continue, this memo goes on to
point out to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs the circumstance
concerning the ruling on a pretrial motion in a general court martial.
It pointed out the military judge determined that Admiral Kelso was an
accuser within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 9, of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice with regard to each accused and, therefore,
had an actual and apparent unlawful command influence in each case. And
the military judge dismissed the charges.
The military judge's order--and this is the Secretary of Navy now
writing this--was based in part upon certain findings of fact
concerning Admiral Kelso. Those findings of fact reflect the military
judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses Admiral Kelso was
unable to confront or cross-examine.
An impartial official fact-finder has reached a conclusion
contrary to that of the military judge concerning the issues
about Admiral Kelso that the military judge considered. On
February 11, 1994, the Department of Defense Deputy Inspector
General issued a statement describing the findings reached by
him as the result of his office's investigation of Tailhook
'91 and Admiral Kelso. His statement declared that during his
investigation, his office found no credible evidence that
Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge of the incidents and
events that took place. He also stated his belief that, based
on all the testimony, Admiral Kelso was not present on the
third floor patio on Saturday night and that those who
believed they saw him are mistaken. The Deputy Inspector
General further stated that Admiral Kelso's conduct during
the DODIG investigation ``was beyond reproach'' and was
inconsistent with the conduct of an individual who was
motivated to hide misconduct from public scrutiny.
Mind you, Mr. President, this is the current Secretary of Navy who
has recommended that the President send this nomination to us to retire
Admiral Kelso in the grade of Admiral.
But the main point I want to make is, the people who are here now
asking that he not be retired at that grade do not realize that this
man wanted to take responsibility because of the way he was totally
revolted by the evidence of Tailhook. He wanted to be the symbol
himself. He was asked in the interests of our country to stay on board,
and he did stay on board. He has conducted himself extremely well in
his duties. He was not responsible for this investigation and, on the
contrary, an active Secretary and then subsequently the new Secretary
had people review this, particularly through the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Defense.
Admiral Kelso has been at the center of the planning of the base
force concept that was advocated by Gen. Colin Powell when he was
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Bottom-Up Review that was led by
Secretary Les Aspin. During this period he stayed on board, the Navy
has radically reduced the number of ships, aircraft, and submarines,
while conducting nonstop missions in the Persian Gulf, off Bosnia, and
around North Korea. He continued the combat readiness and high morale
of the Navy during this period. These are tributes of leadership of
what he has done.
Instead, people here want to use him as a symbol of the Tailhook
incident and the fact that someone ought to pay.
This man wanted to take that responsibility, but, in the interest of
the Navy and in the interest of the United States, he was asked to stay
on board and he did stay on board.
To punish him now as a symbol of misconduct of other naval officers
to me is just wrong. I think that it is time we recognized what is
happening.
Senator Inouye and I conducted hearings this morning on recruitment.
Recruitment is down. The quality of people who are coming into the
Armed Forces is down. The problem is that people who are interested in
a career are looking to see what Congress is doing to the armed
services.
And here is an incident of just total, total wrongful interpretation
of this man's record and what he has done. I cannot believe that a man
who has done what he has done ought to be in some way blamed for what
went on at Tailhook or the cheating incidents at the Naval Academy. I
think the people here fail to recognize what he tried to do to respond
to those crises. But, above all, I think they fail to recognize what he
has done for the country.
Just think, how many of you here have had complaints from people in
the Navy about the downsizing? We have downsized our Navy. We have put
our Navy under greater stress than it has been under since World War
II, and we have done it at a time when we got through a complete
review, three Secretaries of Defense, and three Secretaries of the
Navy. This man's watch has been one of the most difficult watches in
the history of this office.
I think he is entitled to the rank he has earned through 38 years of
service for this country.
I was just walking down the hall and I met a young ex-officer I know.
He said, ``You know, one of these days all of the people who have
defended this country under fire are just going to resign en masse.''
He was just irritated over what he had heard out here on this floor.
And some of the Senators making some comments, on the one hand, ``Oh,
he is entitled to credit for his service; but then, we don't want him
to retire in that rank because we want a symbol, a symbol somehow that
Tailhook was wrong.''
Tailhook was wrong. My God, if there was anybody who knew it was
wrong and wanted to show it was wrong immediately, it was Admiral
Kelso.
I think to strip him of his rank, to not allow him to retire to the
rank he served in now as CNO--some people seem to think this is a last-
minute promotion. This is a permanent recognition of the rank he served
under as the admiral of the Navy.
Admiral Kelso cannot come here to the floor to answer the critics who
oppose this nomination. It is not a nomination in the normal sense. It
is a confirmation. We are asked to confirm this man in retirement
status as a four-star admiral because he has earned it.
I implore the people who are here to recognize the lifetime of
dedication to this country of a man who was a distinguished naval
officer. But particularly, to the women Senators here, I ask you to
remember he is a father. He is a father of two young women who are very
sensitive about their father's role in this matter. And there are
others around here who are fathers who are sensitive of their own
daughters' impressions of Tailhook.
I cannot quite understand why any Senator wants to take a person and
hold him up as a symbol. Everyone on the floor today has recognized
this man's service. I have not heard anyone condemn his service--38
years of dedicated service to our country and his leadership in
peacetime and wartime.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. STEVENS. I will take 2 more minutes, if I may.
Mr. EXON. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am just hard put to understand it.
I guess I cannot understand it because I participated in some of the
conversations at the time we urged him not to step down. We urged him
to continue what he was doing. I am one of those who urged this man to
stay in office.
And now he is going to be given worse treatment.
As one Senator said before, how many people would have denied him his
four-star rank if he had retired and taken on the full responsibility
of Tailhook at the time the incident first came to light? How many
people would have said, ``No, you cannot retire in the grade you have
served this country in as Chief of Naval Operations"?
I think the conclusion to be reached is somehow or another, it should
be taken away from him because of what he did or did not do since then.
If you know what he has done, as I know what he has done, in that
period of time, he has downsized, he has led the country to a better
Navy, a smaller Navy, a more affordable Navy, a more capable Navy. If
for nothing else in his whole career, he deserves that rank for what he
has done since Tailhook, but I think he deserves that rank for his
total service to the country.
I thank my friend for yielding time.
Exhibit 1
Department of the Navy,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, February 17, 1994.
Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense
Thru: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Secretary of
Defense
Subject: Navy Flag Officer Nomination
Recommend the President nominate Admiral Frank B. Kelso II,
United States Navy, age 60, for appointment to the grade of
admiral in the retired list. Admiral Kelso is currently
serving as Chief of Naval Operations. He will retire in
Spring 1994.
In accordance with the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, and DOD Instruction 1320.4, a proposed
memorandum for the President is attached.
Investigative files and all systems of records maintained
in this Department referring to this officer by name or
identifying particulars, including Standard Form 278
(Financial Disclosure Report), have been reviewed since last
Senate confirmation, and we find no evidence of conflict of
interest. To our knowledge, there is no pending investigation
of alleged misconduct by this officer.
Admiral Kelso was present at the Tailhook '91 Convention.
He did not engage in any personal wrongdoing with respect to
the planning for Tailhook or conduct at Tailhook.
Accordingly, he was not the subject of any adverse action
concerning those matters. However, because of his
accountability as Chief of Naval Operations for the conduct
of subordinates, he received nonpunitive correspondence in
that regard. As guidance for the future performance of his
duties, that letter described the Secretary of the Navy's
standards concerning the leadership responsibilities of Flag
Officers. By its express terms it was not intended to have
any adverse impact upon Admiral Kelso's retirement in the
grade of admiral at the conclusion of his service in that
grade.
On February 8, 1994, a ruling on a pretrial motion was
issued in the general courts-martial of three officers
accused of Tailhook offenses. Because Admiral Kelso was not
an accused, he was not a party to those cases or to the
motion. In consequence, Admiral Kelso did not have the right
or opportunity to be represented by his own counsel, present
evidence or argument to the Court or cross-examine witnesses.
In his ruling, the military judge determined that Admiral
Kelso was an ``accuser'' within the meaning of Article 1(g),
UCMJ, with regard to each accused and that there had been
actual and apparent unlawful command influence in each case.
As a result, the military judge dismissed the charges against
the three accused officers. (A copy of the military
judge's written ruling and order is attached as exhibit
A.)
The military judge's order was based in part upon certain
findings of fact concerning Admiral Kelso. Those findings
reflected the military judge's assessment of the credibility
of witnesses Admiral Kelso was unable to confront or cross-
examine.
An impartial official fact-finder has reached a conclusion
contrary to that of the military judge concerning the issues
about Admiral Kelso that the military judge considered. On
February 11, 1994, the Department of Defense Deputy Inspector
General issued a statement describing the findings reached by
him as the result of his office's investigation of Tailhook
'91 and Admiral Kelso. His statement declared that during his
investigation, his office found no credible evidence that
Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge of the incidents and
events that took place. He also stated his belief that, based
on all the testimony, Admiral Kelso was not present on the
third floor patio on Saturday night and that those who
believe they saw him are mistaken. The Deputy Inspector
General further stated that Admiral Kelso's conduct during
the DODIG investigation ``was beyond reproach'' and was
inconsistent with the conduct of an individual who was
motivated to hide misconduct from public scrutiny. (A copy of
the DODIG's statement is attached as Exhibit B.)
On February 15, 1994, you issued a statement concerning
Admiral Kelso. Your statement was based upon your review of
the DODIG's conclusions and discussions with me about the
military judge's ruling. You noted that Admiral Kelso had not
been a party to the courts-martial proceedings. You also
noted the DODIG's findings and conclusions about Admiral
Kelso. You stated that you had personal knowledge that
Admiral Kelso did not himself decide on the disposition of
the Flag Officer files developed by the Inspector General and
that then-Secretary Aspin decided to hold those files for
review by civilian leadership. (A copy of SECDEF's statement
is attached as Exhibit C.)
On February 15, 1994, I also issued a statement concerning
Admiral Kelso. My statement declared that I have never
questioned the personal integrity and honor of Frank Kelso. I
further stated my full concurrence with your judgment
regarding Admiral Kelso's character. I know that Admiral
Kelso was not given custody or control of any of the Flag
Officer files prior to the Consolidated Disposition
Authority's decision to refer cases to trial. (A copy of
SECNAV's statement is attached as Exhibit D.)
If you desire any additional information about the
preceding matters, I will provide it at your request.
Admiral Kelso has rendered exceptionally meritorious
service in the grade of Admiral. In addition, he discharged
even more substantial responsibilities while serving for
approximately six months as Acting Secretary of the Navy on
the basis of his distinguished service to our Navy and our
Nation in peacetime and in war, I most strongly recommend
that this retirement in the grade of admiral be confirmed.
This action will not result in any change to the Navy's
authorized number of admirals.
John H. Dalton
Secretary of the Navy.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, the Senate President pro tempore, Senator
Byrd, 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Maryland for her yielding 15 minutes. I will not use that much time.
leadership and accountability
Mr. President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of the Navy, have all maintained
that the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Frank Kelso, should be allowed
to retire as a four-star admiral. They believe that his long and
distinguished career, 38 years of service in the Navy, merits
retirement at four stars, regardless of the blot on his escutcheon
known as the Tailhook scandal. Mr. President, I respect the individuals
who have made this recommendation, and I appreciate their
thoughtfulness in considering the full scope of Admiral Kelso's
contributions to the Navy as they have made their recommendation and as
Senators have stated here on the floor today. But I cannot agree with
them on this issue. As the Chief of Naval Operations since 1990,
Admiral Kelso must assume responsibility for the failure of leadership
that allowed the events at the Tailhook convention to occur.
The continuing disgrace of the Tailhook scandal was clearly a failure
of leadership, a ``deficiency of leadership'' noted by Secretary Perry.
I quote from a letter from then-Secretary of the Navy Lawrence Garrett
to the president of the Tailhook Association, dated 29 October 1991,
terminating the Navy's support of the Tailhook Association:
There are certain categories of behavior and attitudes that
I unequivocally will not tolerate. You know the phrase:
``Not in my Navy, not on my watch.'' Tailhook '91 is a
gross example of exactly what cannot be permitted by the
civilian or uniformed leadership of the Navy, at any
level. No man who holds a commission in this Navy will
ever subject a woman to the kind of abuse in evidence at
Tailhook '91 with impunity. And no organization which
makes possible this behavior is in any way worthy of a
naval leadership or advisory role.
As we may recall, Mr. President, Secretary Garrett resigned as a
result of his role in the Tailhook scandal. But his words still ring
true, and Tailhook '91 remains a gross example of what cannot be
permitted by the civilian or uniformed leadership of the Navy, at any
level.
The presence of senior officers, including Secretary Garrett and
Admiral Kelso, at a convention renowned for its parties, drinking, and
lewd behavior makes a mockery of official statements about a ``zero
tolerance for sexual harassment,'' a policy that Secretary of Defense
Perry notes in his testimony was instituted by Admiral Kelso in
November 1991. The Department of Defense inspector general's report
notes that:
Clearly, some of the activities that took place at Tailhook
conventions were known within the Navy to be incompatible
with Navy policies dealing with sexual harassment and abuse
of alcohol. To some, the presence of the Secretary and flag
officers gave tacit approval to the event, including those
aspects of the convention that were contrary to established
Navy policies.
To fail to censure the leadership, Mr. President, that allowed this,
while holding junior officers responsible and accountable, in my
judgment, is not reasonable.
In response to concerns generated by the leadership failures related
to the Tailhook scandal, the Senate included in the fiscal years 1992
and 1993 National Defense Authorization Act a provision that made the
retirement of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps at the highest grade subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Mr. President, that is why this retirement is being debated
today. In 1991, the Senate recognized the need to hold leaders
accountable for failures of leadership. Secretary Garrett resigned.
Admiral Kelso was recommended for an early retirement by our current
Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton, a recommendation that was not
accepted by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. While the Senate did
not have the opportunity to act on Admiral Kelso's retirement earlier,
he ultimately must be held accountable for his failure of leadership.
If the Senate does act today to hold Admiral Kelso accountable, it will
do more than any sexual harassment training session to bring home the
responsibility and accountability of all uniformed personnel to conduct
themselves professionally and to respect the rights of women, civilian
and military. So, Mr. President, I shall cast my vote to hold Admiral
Kelso accountable.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding that
under the agreement now governing the disposition of this matter, that
the time for debate will expire, if all used, at 8:04 p.m. this
evening?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an
additional 26 minutes for debate be added, to be equally divided and
controlled in a form consistent with the prior agreement, and that a
vote on the pending matter occur at 8:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is clearly a difficult time for all of
us, particularly the Navy. Tailhook was an ugly incident. I am pleased
to be able to use the past tense, because it is an incident that will
not be repeated. I doubt if any institution is more sensitive to that
fact than the U.S. Navy at this particular point.
No one on this Senate floor condones what happened at Tailhook. Any
incident of sexual harassment, sexual intimidation, is not something
that we can condone. The question before us, I believe, is whether we
look at what has transpired in the Navy since the occurrence of this
particular incident and others, or whether we make a final point by
demoting a man who has given 38 years of service in the service of his
country and reached the pinnacle of success in the branch of service
that he has served in.
As Senator Nunn has said, the Armed Services Committee has very
thoroughly investigated this matter. We held the almost unprecedented
procedure of bringing before our committee the Secretary of the Navy,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense. We particularly were interested in finding out whether Admiral
Kelso did, in fact, have knowledge of the incident that occurred at
Tailhook. I was persuaded, as many on the committee were--and those who
I think have seriously investigated it--that Admiral Kelso did not have
specific knowledge of the incident that took place.
We also very seriously investigated the matter as to whether Admiral
Kelso in any way interfered with the investigation. Based on the
testimony before us and my review of the case, I have concluded along
with many others that he in no way interfered with the investigation
that took place. In fact, Secretary of Defense William Perry indicated
to us that he had spent well over 100 hours of his personal time--not
just reading the IG report, but talking to those who were present at
Tailhook, talking to anyone who was even remotely involved in this
matter; and that he had personally satisfied himself as to these two
facts that I just related.
So one question that I think has been answered to the satisfaction of
this Senator and most on our committee is Admiral Kelso's knowledge and
Admiral Kelso's involvement, if any, in the investigation.
The question then comes, because this was his watch, do we take this
step of demoting him--in a sense demoting him in his retirement--which
is accelerated? I think it is important, as long as we are talking
about what has taken place on Admiral Kelso's watch, it is important to
balance the scales somewhat to talk about what else has taken place on
Admiral Kelso's watch in regards to the question of women in the
military, and particularly women in the Navy.
The role of women in the day-to-day operations of the Navy as we all
know has been very significantly increased. We have expanded women's
aviation assignments. Three women aviators were recently promoted to
captain. None had achieved that rank as a woman aviator prior to 1990.
Promotion opportunities have been expanded very substantially. Nine
women have been promoted to flag rank. All of this has taken place
during Admiral Kelso's tenure.
Admiral Kelso also has greatly expanded command opportunities for
women officers, both ashore and afloat. He has instituted a strong,
workable prevention policy to combat sexual harassment. He has put
teeth into the zero tolerance policy among both military and civilian
personnel. He has established a forceful training initiative which
outlines for every Navy man and woman acceptable and unacceptable
behavior; the procedure for filing complaints, the role of commanding
officers in preventing harassment, actions they are required to take;
the role that alcohol abuse has; and discharge procedures used.
I can go on, but given the limitations of time I think it is
important to note what Admiral Kelso has done on his watch in this
regard is very positive. I think it is also important to understand
that Admiral Kelso has, as Senator Stevens said, volunteered to be a
symbol but was persuaded not to be a symbol by then-Secretary of
Defense Les Aspin, and confirmed by the President of the United States.
It is important to understand the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, current Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, and the
President of the United States, have all recommended, after thorough
review of this matter, that Admiral Kelso be retired in his current
rank.
The man has suffered. The man has been punished. The man and his
family now have a blot on his record that cannot be erased regardless
of what we do here. He has suffered personally, I think, very
substantially, as has his family. Because he has not been engaged in
any delay or had any involvement in interfering with the investigation,
and because I think it has been proven that he has not had knowledge of
what took place at Tailhook, in the opinion of this Senator, Admiral
Kelso has paid the price. He should be retired at his current rank, and
I will vote accordingly.
I yield the floor.
Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. METZENBAUM. The Senator from Ohio is allocated 10 minutes, I
believe, under the order; is that correct?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to Senator Metzenbaum 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I rise because I am somewhat disturbed that so much of
this debate has revolved around female Members of this body, who have
led the charge on this issue. But I rise because I believe it is an
issue that belongs to the other 94 Members of this body, the male
Members. I believe that what is involved here has to do with what the
American people, and the world, for that matter, will perceive as to
how the Senate treated the entire Tailhook incident.
There are probably few incidents in the Navy's history more
embarrassing than Tailhook. I can see the headlines tomorrow: ``U.S.
Senate Confirms Admiral in Charge of Tailhook Investigation, and One
Most Directly Involved, a Four-Star Admiral.'' That is not the way it
should be. That is not the message that should be sent. I think it is
an embarrassment that we are being forced to take up this issue.
The argument is made that this man is a fine admiral and he has done
his job well. I do not question the fine work he has done in the U.S.
Navy. I am sure he has been an excellent member of the naval forces. I
have no quarrel with that at all. But we send a signal if 94 male
Members of the U.S. Senate see fit to confirm him with four stars. He
would retire under any circumstances with two stars.
We somehow look totally aside from the findings of that man who had
to be a very courageous captain, the findings of the Navy's own judge,
Capt. William T. Vest. Captain Vest concluded that the admiral had lied
about his own activities at Tailhook '91 and then used his rank to
impede the investigation. Somehow some on this floor would have us
totally disregard the findings of that captain and say, ``Well, look
what the inspector general did and look what the Secretary of the Navy
did.'' I think you have to look at the findings of that person who was
on the scene who was charged with the responsibility and look at his
conclusions.
There is not much question about the fact that Admiral Kelso was
responsible for the botched investigation, and for that we promote him
to a four-star general? A Navy judge accused him of lying when he
denied he had witnessed any misconduct there and charged he used his
rank to impede the investigation. I do not know if all that is true.
But that is what the Navy judge concluded, and I have to assume that
when he was placed in that position to be the Navy judge, it is because
he had the qualifications, the ability, and the character to be in that
position.
But I cannot see how we, who are males in this body, can literally
slap in the face all the women in this country who are concerned about
what happened to those women who were forced to run the gauntlet at
Tailhook. When we learned about that, the whole Nation was embarrassed
by it. Then the investigation was botched.
Now what do we do? We turn around and we say, ``Oh, yes, oh, yes, but
the fact is, he has had a distinguished naval career, and, therefore,
we want to retire him with four stars.'' It is not the amount of money
involved. We are talking about a difference of $1,100 or $1,400 a
month. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the U.S.
Senate, a body dominated, as far as numbers are concerned, by males,
who see fit to turn our backs on this issue and to say that we will
give our stamp of approval to the ``old boys network,'' that we will be
willing to stand up and say, ``Well, yes, he did it, but you know how
those things are; let's just go along and give him four stars.'' I do
not think that is right. I think it is the wrong thing to do, but I
think it is an embarrassment to do it as well.
I think that we ought to be out here on the floor--no, we should not
be on the floor. This issue should not even be before us. It should
never have gotten this far. As long as it got this far, I think the
U.S. Senate ought to refuse to award Admiral Kelso four stars.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I rise this evening as one of the
Senators from the home State of Admiral Kelso, and I rise to ask my
colleagues to join me in judging a man on the basis of a long history
of positive accomplishments, rather than what some say is an incident,
and I would say serious incident, of failure to perform. I ask you to
join me in judging him on what he did rather than what he failed to do.
As a former Navy man, I followed the repercussions of the 1991
Tailhook convention with some concern and at times with considerable
distress. The professionalism, character, and behavior of the Navy's
officer corps are not small matters to me or for the Nation.
The Senate does not make a judgment that reflects on the
professionalism, the character, and behavior of the Navy's seniormost
officer, and that, too, is not a small matter. There is not a Senator
among us who condones or excuses the repugnant events of Tailhook '91.
Admiral Kelso was present at that event. Testimony by the admiral's
superiors before the Armed Services Committee concluded, however, he
did not personally witness any misconduct. Nevertheless, Admiral Kelso
is a 38-year veteran of the Navy. He knew the reputation of the
Tailhook Symposium, or certainly he should have known. The men involved
were active-duty officers, and I suspect that the admiral himself
wishes he had taken more direct personal control of its goings-on.
But Admiral Kelso has already been judged for his failure to do so in
a court of public opinion, whose verdict has been less than generous.
That said, Mr. President, I also point out that we are about to make
a judgment not about a single episode in the admiral's career, but
about that career as a whole. Deciding whether Admiral Kelso retires
with four stars is a decision that we must base upon his performance
throughout an entire career. Mr. President, I point out there has not
been any question that he has had a distinguished career.
It was his leadership that assured naval forces were prepared, fit,
and able to perform superbly during Operation Desert Storm. As
commander of the 6th Fleet, he commanded naval forces that helped seize
Palestinian terrorists responsible for killing Americans aboard the
Achille Lauro. He headed operations that conducted air raids on Libya
after the terrorism against United States personnel in Berlin.
He showed immense integrity in reopening the investigation into the
explosion above the U.S.S. Iowa that overturned the conclusions of an
earlier inquiry.
His leadership and foresight were the driving forces on shaping the
Navy's modern warfare strategy that changed focus from open-ocean
warfare to beach warfare. This strategy created greater cohesion
between the Navy, Marines and other services. It is a major
contribution in the reorientation on American forces.
I also point out that Admiral Kelso has been at the forefront of
efforts to open shipboard service to women. He has been vocal and
earnest in recommending that the law be changed to permit women to
serve on combat warships and Navy aircraft. I have long believed that
our fighting forces become more effective when their composition
reflects more fully the society they protect.
Admiral Kelso's leadership in opening naval opportunities for women
would promote that goal and leave a legacy for which I hope he will be
remembered.
Mr. President, I have listened to the reasoned and thoughtful
comments of our colleagues, who speak their perspective so rightly and
convincingly. I am persuaded by much of what they have to say.
At bottom, however, I ultimately am persuaded by remarks from Senator
Nunn, capable chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has
differentiated between Admiral Kelso's accountability as Chief of Naval
Operations and his sole responsibility as senior officer present.
Mr. President, our task today would be considerably less difficult if
the facts about Admiral Kelso's direct personal and professional
involvement in Tailhook were clear. To the contrary, however, the facts
are in dispute. The report of the inspector general leads us in one
direction. The finding of the special military judge leads us in
another. By the same token, our task would be less difficult if Admiral
Kelso's service record indicated previous blemishes, repeated failures
to exercise command, incidents of not upholding standards, or winking
at unacceptable behavior.
However, if anything can be said to be clear, it is that the record
shows the opposite. Admiral Kelso has served his Nation and the Navy in
an exemplary career.
When we are to make a judgment about how the admiral ends that
career, we should make it on the evidence of that career, not on the
basis of disputed testimony, conflicting facts, and the intensity of
our indignation over a single moment in that career.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting to retire
Adm. Frank Kelso at his current rank. We are not giving him a gratuity.
He has earned the rank which he now holds, and I ask you to join me in
retiring him at this rank.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
This concludes the number of people who had designated times, with
the exception of Senator Boxer and myself. Senator Nancy Kassebaum
intends to submit a statement for the Record.
Later on this evening, I know we will be doing our wrapup and
rebuttal prior to the vote.
It is very hard to debate this on the Senate floor. The reason it is
hard is that when one reads what happened in Tailhook, and when one
hears about the chants that Admiral Kelso allegedly heard and turned
his back on, it is so vulgar I cannot bring myself to even read from
the report on the Senate floor. I will not do that to the Senate. But
let me say to the American people and to everyone watching on C-SPAN,
because that is the where it is, it is pretty bad. In fact, it is so
bad that we, the women of the Senate, do not wish to use the type of
language that is described.
But I am going to talk about some things. For example, pornography.
Some squadron hospitality suites did feature pornography. Witnesses
described various types of pornography ranging from softcore to
hardcore videos and slides. A few suites simply used the Hilton Hotel's
pay-per-view. However, it was openly condoned.
There were other things that went on there that created an atmosphere
of degradation to women, and actually degradation to all men who regard
themselves as officers and gentlemen.
For a lot of people who saw ``Top Gun'', that is what they thought it
was all about, being an officer and a gentleman. And what is this that
we expect of the officers? We expect them to be gentlemen, just as we
would expect the female officers to be gentleladies.
What then is the code of conduct? The code of conduct is not monastic
behavior. It is not schoolmarmish behavior. But it is a code that,
first of all, recognizes the dignity of all people. There is a saying
that often goes around in events like that: Boys will be boys.
Well, when will men be men? The men I know do not take great joy in
watching pornography. They think it is repugnant behavior for a man to
demean anyone, be it a woman or another man. Also, they take great
pride in the fact that in order for them to look strong, they do not
have to make someone else look weak, and debase and humiliate them.
That is what they call being an officer and a gentleman. Or if you are
not an officer, it is what is called a gentleman.
The other is that the code of conduct calls for a sense of honor,
meaning that when something goes astray others step in. If something
gets out of hand, like a rumble, and just escalates into an environment
that has punched itself into chaos and out-of-bounds behavior and,
almost, a group behavior, like out of Deliverance, takes over, that
others would step in. Well, nobody stepped in--like nobody, but nobody,
stepped in.
There are those who would say, ``Well, Senator Mikulski, you are
describing Tailhook. What's that got to do with Admiral Kelso?''
The facts are in dispute. The facts are that no one disputes Tailhook
and the violent, vulgar behavior that went on there. No one disputes
that. And no one disputes that the Navy could not even get its act
together to conduct an investigation. There is incredible dispute
between the inspector general's report as well as the military court.
Here we have a whole U.S. Navy, it equipped itself with night optics,
but it has myopia when it goes to investigate this matter.
Well, put your goggles on, guys. It is time to look and see what is
going on.
No dispute over the dispute. Is that not a shock in a United States
of America that prides itself on its legal system, its competency in
investigation? Yet we have disputes over who knew what, and what
Admiral Kelso knew or what he did not know. And he presided over that.
Now, in the course of the debate, what so disturbed me was those who
spoke in favor of the admiral's four-star retirement talked about how
we have targeted Kelso; that we are looking for a symbol; that we are
out to punish him; and that we are out to humiliate him.
We did not start out this way. It is not us that torpedoed Admiral
Kelso. It is his own United States Navy. It was his own inspector
general that has bungled the investigation. It was his own head of
naval aviation. It was one source of Navy involved in this after
another that bungled it. They torpedoed Kelso. The junior officers at
Tailhook torpedoed Kelso and torpedoed the reputation of the U.S. Navy
as top gun and as officers and gentlemen.
We did not do that. We are not out to humiliate Kelso.
Then there is this whole thing about what President Clinton did and
the Secretary of Defense, and they agreed to this, that he retire.
Well, that might be fine. But the Senate function here is an advise
and consent one. We are recommending that Admiral Kelso retire as the
current law dictates. He is by law entitled to a two-star retirement.
We are not advocating anything less than what he is entitled to by law.
He was entitled to that two-star retirement when he signed up for the
Navy, when his wife followed him around the world, when his devoted
daughters supported him. They knew that the retirement was two stars.
We hear that there have been 200 military personnel allowed to move
through this august body above the two-star rank--some distinguished,
some mediocre, some very distinguished, and some close to the edge.
Well, Mr. President, I cannot be held responsible for star bloat or
star inflate. The law says you retire at two stars unless there is
advice and consent by the Senate. My understanding is that that was not
automatic. It was meant for something extraordinary and exemplary.
Maybe if we want to have people retire in grade, change the law. But do
not change the rules when we are talking about Kelso. We are saying
retire Admiral Kelso at what he is entitled to by law, nothing more and
nothing less. We do not think that is humiliating. We do not think that
is punishing. We do not think that is singling him out. We are not
saying retire at one star. We are not saying retire at no star. We are
saying retire according to the law.
About these 200 who retired, perhaps we need to change the law. The
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee talks about how
there were other members of the military who retired at full grade or
the grade that they held and talked about terrible things that happened
while they were commanding officers. And certainly many of those things
were terrible, going back from the Korean war through now. However,
when a lot of those things happened, there were not bungled
investigations. There was not the coverup by junior officers. There was
not the lying by junior officers. There was not the buddy system taking
over for the honor system.
Instead of everyone being worried about what the women in the Senate
and the men who support us are saying, I would worry about the failure
of the honor system. I would worry about the code of conduct. I would
hope my critics are worried about the code of conduct. I would hope our
critics are worried about the honor code. I would hope they would be
concerned about this pattern of bungled investigations when it occurs
during these issues relating to scandal.
We know that this is not a perfect world. We know that there are
always error in judgments. We know there are technological failures. We
know in some of those matters that the distinguished chairman outlined
there were human errors in judgment, that there were technological
failures, and there were great tragedies.
At the same time, we also know that for many of them, when we were
investigating, we could get to the bottom of it and make sure it never
happened again. And guess what? We want to get to the bottom of this
and make sure it never happens again, just the way we correct our
technology, just the way we try to have better judgment. We have to
change the culture. That is what we are trying to do here. We are
trying to do the lessons learned, and perhaps through the lessons
learned there have to be lessons conveyed.
So for all of those who believe that somehow or another we are the
problem by raising this issue, I will respectfully bring to their
attention that I believe it is not us who have spoken out on the issue
that are the problem. The problem is the failure of the bungled
investigation and the tarnishing of the Navy's reputation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MATHEWS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Nebraska, I
yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, I would like to make several comments regarding the
debate concerning Admiral Kelso's pension. My thoughts are influenced
to some degree by my experience as Secretary of the Navy in the early
1970's. But I am also influenced by the manner of the legal profession.
First, I want to review the admiral's career. At the age of 19, Frank
Kelso went into the U.S. Naval Academy, and for the next 38 years made
a career in the Navy. By all accounts, Admiral Kelso has been a
distinguished officer. He led the 6th Fleet, commanded Navy forces that
seized the terrorists responsible for the killing of an American aboard
the Achille Lauro cruise ship, and was in charge of the air strikes
against Libya in response to that nation's sponsorship of international
terrorism. He became a four-star admiral in 1986. In short, Admiral
Kelso has had an impressive career.
In June of 1990, 4 years after having become a four-star officer,
Admiral Kelso became Chief of Naval Operations. As we all know, it was
during this period that the infamous Tailhook convention took place. It
was there that the Navy aviators in 1991 harassed, abused, and
assaulted female sailors and female guests in one of the Navy's worse
moments. Tailhook was a disgrace for the Navy. Sexual harassment has no
place in our society and certainly no place in the armed services.
Tailhook took place on Admiral Kelso's watch, and I strongly believe
in and commend accountability regardless of what the admiral knew and
when he knew it. He was present in the very building where these
reprehensible actions took place. Furthermore, his investigation of the
incidents was badly handled.
I make these stern statements, Mr. President, in spite of the fact
that the deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense, Derek
J. Vander Schaaf, a civilian, reported on March 30, which was just 3
weeks ago, as follows. This is what his report said:
We concluded that Admiral Kelso was not on the patio
Saturday evening and did not visit the hospitality suite at
any time. Further, we are unable to find any credible
evidence that Admiral Kelso had specific knowledge of the
improper incidents and events that took place. Finally, we
find no evidence that Admiral Kelso sought to thwart the
Navy's internal investigation into the Tailhook matter.
When a Navy commander fails in his responsibilities such as Admiral
Kelso did, the Secretary of the Navy has two options. First, the
Secretary can relieve the officer of his command. Second, the Secretary
can initiate a court-martial. In Admiral Kelso's place, Secretary John
Dalton recommended the first option: Relief of the admiral from his
command as Chief of Naval Operations. In my judgment, the Secretary of
the Navy acted correctly, and I admire him for it. Admiral Kelso should
have been relieved as Chief of Naval Operations. Regrettably, Secretary
Aspin, Secretary of Defense Aspen, chose to overrule that
recommendation.
Today, however, Mr. President, the Senate is being asked to review a
different subject, which is the admiral's pension earned over a 38-year
Navy career. Today's debate is not a referendum on whether the Navy did
a good job handling Tailhook and its subsequent investigation. Clearly,
it did not. It also is not a vote on whether sexual harassment is wrong
and should be severely punished. Clearly, it should be.
Mr. President, the specific question the Senate is being asked to
consider today is as follows: Does the U.S. Senate levy a severe
penalty, deprivation of a portion of an earned pension, without any
form of due process?
Admiral Kelso had 4 years of service, as I mentioned before, as a
four-star admiral before he became Chief of Naval Operations in 1990.
Had he chosen to retire in 1990, he clearly would have been entitled to
his full pension as a four-star admiral.
What the Senate now proposes is to punish him by denying him part of
that earned pension with no process whatsoever, no hearing, no chance
to face his accusers, no right to counsel, and without having been
convicted of anything.
Clearly, if Admiral Kelso had been through a trial and had been
convicted, then consideration of the amount of his pension would be
legitimate. That is not the case here. To those who say Admiral Kelso
has not been held accountable for his failure to act, the answer is
that there are proceedings to ascertain whether such a charge is valid.
No such proceedings have been held here.
Mr. President, the Senate is abusing its powers when it commences to
take earned pensions away from any retirees, including military,
without any formal proceedings. Therefore, I oppose the effort to
reduce the admiral's pension, and I plan to support the retirement of
Admiral Kelso as a four-star admiral.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Who yields time?
Mr. MATHEWS. On behalf of the Senator from Nebraska, I yield to the
Senator from Hawaii such time as he may require.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it was not my intention to participate in
this debate, but I have spent the last hour watching my colleagues
discuss this matter on television. I came to the floor because I felt I
had to make my position known.
I believe all of us agree that the admiral's record is an exemplary
one, that he has served this country well in peace and in war. The
question arises as to whether we believe the trial judge or the
inspector general.
Second, do we believe the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
If we believe the trial judge, then, as the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee has suggested, this should not be a matter of
debate; we should court-martial him. But having known the admiral all
these years, I cannot question his honesty and veracity. I believe he
was telling the truth.
The argument that has been brought up by many of my colleagues that
this happened during his watch. The word ``accountability'' has been
used on many occasions. In some cases, the words ``absolute
accountability'' have been used. It reminded me of the Nuremberg
trials. In this trial, some of the most vicious and evil men in
mankind's history were being tried. But in each case our prosecutors
had to demonstrate that these men on the dock had some knowledge, or
had participated in, or were involved in the commission of a crime.
No one has come forward to suggest that he was involved in the
commission of these crimes. The question is: Did he know about it? He
has said under oath that he did not, and his position has been backed
up by the inspector general.
Because I have such great respect for my colleagues in the Senate--
and I wish to commend them for bringing this matter to this point of
debate--and because I agree with them that the charges are serious, it
is deserving of our full attention and full discussion. But in this
case, I find myself disagreeing with their conclusions.
I will vote for the admiral.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from California such time as she
may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from
California [Mrs. Boxer] is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend from Maryland, and I
commend her for her excellent job managing this side of the debate. It
has been a very, very long and difficult debate, and I thank both sides
for their contributions.
The reason I am rising again at this point in the debate, is to rebut
some of the comments made to support this nomination to grant Admiral
Kelso four stars and an additional $1,400 a month on his pension.
Many arguments were made, and I listened very carefully. I have been
on the floor, as many of my colleagues have been, continuously. I think
they deserve to be analyzed.
I say to my friend, Senator Chafee, who said that this is not the
proper venue to make a stand on this issue: This is our only venue. I
used to serve on the Armed Services Committee in the House. I no longer
do in the U.S. Senate. I enjoyed my tenure there. I did not have a
chance to express myself in that committee, so this is my only
opportunity.
Senator Nunn points out that maybe we should not have the
responsibility to review retirements in this manner. Maybe we ought to
reform the system. I am very happy to look into it.
But the fact is that this issue is before us, and those of us who
have been troubled by Tailhook and its aftermath, and some of the
continuing problems in the military, feel this is an appropriate venue
and feel that our vote is far more than symbolic. Our vote is the right
vote--to vote ``no'' on granting these two additional stars.
My dear friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, says the issue to him is
whether Admiral Kelso knew what was going on at the time. He backs the
Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, who says that the issue you have to
decide is simple: was he there, or was he not there?
I respect that approach, Madam President, but I think that it is the
wrong question. I do not think this is about whether Admiral Kelso was
on the third floor, heard the kind of chants the Senator from Maryland
referred to, saw the T-shirts that said ``women are property,'' and
heard the screams and the noises that came from the gauntlet.
I say that it is beyond that, because I believe that Admiral Kelso,
the chief of Naval Operations, had to know what Tailhook was about. It
seems that everybody did.
But he went to the symposium. He gave it the dignity of his presence.
I think that was wrong. Then, when the investigation came to the Navy,
it was bungled. Nobody was brought to justice, and the only victims are
the women. By the way, that is not a passing victimization. Anybody who
could tell you--and I know my friend from Maryland was a social worker
and my friend from Washington was a teacher--that the effects of abuse
do not wash away easily.
Senator Nunn said to search your conscience before you vote.
Absolutely, of course, we should do that on all votes. We should search
our consciences. He also says: ``Do not vote out of frustration.''
Well, I am not sure that it is altogether frivolous to vote out of
frustration. I am sure if I asked the good Senator if he ever cast a
vote out of frustration, if he was true to himself, he would agree that
once in a while you do cast such a vote. The frustration in this case
is that not one person in the military really paid a tangible price for
the Tailhook scandal. Yes, a few letters of reprimand, a couple of
early retirements. But really, there has been no tangible price paid.
Only the women, only the women who were assaulted are the victims.
And, again, that will not be easily forgotten. Any of us who have had
any experience with sexual assault, any of us who have had any
experience with sexual harassment, will tell you straight from the
heart, you do not forget it.
I myself had an experience when I was very young, a senior in
college, and I can tell you every single detail of what happened to me.
And I was not bleeding and I was not subjected to the same kind of
groping and pain that some of these women faced in the gauntlet.
So the good Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the committee, says
do not vote to punish Admiral Kelso. I want to say to him and to
others, this is not about punishment. This is not a court martial. We
are not here presiding over a court martial of Admiral Kelso. This is
about whether an admiral retires with honor, with two stars or with
four stars. This is not about a punitive court martial.
Who were the victims? Is Admiral Kelso a victim, a man who is going
to retire with either two or four stars? Or is it the women who were
brutally attacked in the gauntlet.
Senator McCain wonders about what people in the military are thinking
as they watch us. He is clearly upset about that. Well, I say, maybe
they are thinking that we are finally serious about the way we treat
our people in the military; that people should not be viewed as someone
else's property, but as dignified human beings.
Senator McCain finds this vote distasteful. But Senator Murray said
just ask the women who were accosted in that gauntlet. Distasteful does
not begin to describe it. It was revolting. It was criminal. So if this
vote is distasteful, we really apologize to Senators who find it so.
But it is far more than a distasteful vote that is at stake here.
Senator Warner talked about Mrs. Kelso. He warns us that she is being
hurt. I was sitting in the chair when he made that argument, and I
found it to be a bit of a disconnect. I do not know what the point was
in bringing her name into this. Was it to give a message to the women
of the Senate that we are hurting another woman; namely, Mrs. Kelso? We
do not want to hurt Mrs. Kelso and, as Senator Mikulski has said in a
very clear way, Senators did betray Admiral Kelso or Mrs. Kelso. It was
the culture of the Navy. It was an inability for them to get their act
together, even after warning after warning and letter after letter that
this was a rude and terrible tradition that was being carried on at
Tailhook.
We all feel pain when our loved ones are hurt, and I feel for Admiral
Kelso's family in these difficult times. It is hard, and I know that.
But how about the families of the women who were assaulted? My
colleagues should know that these events leave lasting scars, not only
on the victim but the people who love them. If we are going to focus on
Admiral Kelso's family, we surely should focus on the families of the
victims.
You know, Admiral Kelso gets a chance to retire on a pretty good
pension, whether it is two stars or four. Lieutenant Paula Coughlin
quit the military in the middle of a promising career. I think we
should grieve for that.
Senator Nunn says if we deny four stars, we are setting, and I quote
him, ``a new standard of accountability in the military.'' Maybe we
need one. Maybe we need a new standard of accountability.
I never served in the military. As I said, I did serve on the Armed
Services Committee, and I always thought that there was a chain of
command, and that the buck stopped at the top. If in any place in our
society we have a chain of command, it is in the military.
Senator Nunn asked a very important question, and I admit, it made me
think: What would we have done if this came to us in 1992 on the floor
of the U.S. Senate? He speculated that had this nomination come to the
floor in 1992, that this would have happened; that the nomination would
have been confirmed overwhelmingly.
It is important to recall that in 1992, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun
was not in the U.S. Senate. She came here in 1993 with me, Senator
Murray, and Senator Feinstein, and we joined Senator Mikulski. Senator
Hutchison was not here, either. So I do not know what would have
happened in 1992. Knowing my colleague, Senator Mikulski, who knows?
She may have taken this battle on and stood on her feet hour after
hour, hopefully with Senator Kassebaum.
I do not know, but I will tell you one thing. It is 1994, and here we
are, and we are making this an issue with good reason.
I also want to add something else: The final report of the inspector
general came out in February 1993. In 1992, we did not know all this.
So I do not know what would have happened in 1992. But in 1993, this
final report came out, and we ought to pay attention to what it said.
On page 1, section 4, it said that ``inappropriate behavior was
accepted by officers because it had gone on for years.'' And it says
that ``naval officers consistently lied during the investigation.'' It
says on section 10 on page 5 what I consider to be the most damaging
thing in the report: ``Tailhook is the culmination of a long-term
failure of leadership in naval aviation.'' Failure of leadership, and
the ultimate leader was Admiral Kelso.
It is not the women of the Senate saying there was a failure of
leadership. It is this report, which did not come out until 1993.
Senator Stevens is angry with us for raising this issue. He was quite
angry when he spoke. He has a right to be angry. I respect his anger.
He said we, meaning the women in the Senate, are ruining the military.
He said that.
Madam President, I find that unbelievable. I say when you stand up
for the dignity of individuals in the military, regardless of who they
are, you are standing up for the rank and file. That is a good signal
to send. I hope we are going to send that signal tonight, whether we
win this vote, which I hope we do, or make a strong show of support.
I applaud Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison for being the only two
Senators on the Armed Services Committee to oppose this nomination in
committee. And I hope others on the committee listening to this debate
tonight, will reconsider their previous vote based on the comments that
are made here today.
Madam President, in conclusion, I want to rebut Senator Coats, who
says--and this is very important--that Admiral Kelso moved to take
charge of the Navy culture after Tailhook. I want to point this out. He
said Admiral Kelso brought in a zero tolerance policy on sexual
harassment. Make no mistake, this was a terrific thing, and many of us
were involved, including Senator Nunn. He was a terrific leader on
this.
But let me tell you, we can do a lot of talking about changing the
culture, we can write new regulations, we can put on sexual harassment
workshops, but without accountability, it will not be enough. After
Tailhook, a long time after Tailhook, here comes another interesting
story--the testimony of Lt. Darlene Simmons, a lawyer in the Navy. She
gave her testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. I want to
very briefly read a few passages from her testimony.
She complained about sexual harassment on the job, and this is what
happened to her. And I remind my colleagues, this was after Tailhook,
after Admiral Kelso introduced the zero tolerance for harassment
policy. Lt. Simmons testified:
I was placed in a locked psychiatric unit and evaluated by
a Navy psychiatrist,'' and she gives the psychiatrist's name.
``I was found fit for full duty after a 24-hour period of
observation. Hospital policy at Naval Air Station,
Jacksonville, where I was sent, is not to release psychiatric
patients on weekends unless a command requests that release.
My command did not request my release, and I, therefore, had
to remain in a locked psychiatric unit for the rest of the
weekend and through Tuesday, the 13th of October, because
Monday, the 12th of October, was a holiday. The experience of
the psychiatric evaluation was humiliating and unnecessary.
This is a woman who complained about sexual harassment after --
after--Admiral Kelso supposedly clamped down and there was going to be
zero tolerance.
She goes on:
I relied on my chain of command to protect me from reprisal
and to take swift and tough action when there was reprisal.
My good faith reliance was not justified. Instead, my chain
of command used the opportunity to cover up yet another act
of reprisal.
And this is interesting. And does this sound familiar, I say to my
friends?
It is ironic that the only person to suffer adverse career
consequences from the incidents related in this testimony was
me. I am convinced that, despite the rhetoric, the Navy will
not tolerate those who report sexual harassment. The failure
by the system to take timely action compounds the damage done
by the original victimization. The lack of an effective
corrective mechanism means that victims of sexual harassment
have little hope of restoration.
So here we see it. This is a woman, after Tailhook, when everything
was supposed to be better, who gets treated so badly that her case
still has not been resolved.
So, my friends, in conclusion, this is about a lot more than Admiral
Kelso. This is about each and every one of us standing up for the right
of individuals in the military to be free from discrimination of any
kind, harassment of any kind, and to enjoy the dignity that he or she
deserves simply as a member of the human race.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I thank my distinguished colleague from California for her eloquent
synopsis and point-counterpoint to the debate and discussion we had
today.
Much is said about 1991 and what would we have done in 1992. Well, I
would like to remind everybody what happened in 1991. In September
1991, there was Tailhook. In October 1991, there were the hearings of
Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, in which we saw Anita Hill
undergo one of the most serious, grueling, humiliating experiences that
anyone has ever endured before the U.S. Senate. That happened in
October 1991.
At that time, in the closing hours of the debate, I stood up and said
that, ``These hearings have men and women across the country talking
and thinking about sexual harassment.''
This was on Tuesday after that marathon weekend of hearings that I
know many of you were gripped by, as was the Nation. I said this:
These hearings have men and women across the country
talking and thinking about sexual harassment. That is
important. The Nation is going through a very important
teach-in on sexual harassment. But I am afraid the Senate is
about to flunk the course. I am very concerned that the
victim who had the courage to stand up and say, ``No, this is
not right,'' has been treated as if she were the villain.
This is where the process has failed and I am quite angry and
disappointed about it. If you talk to the victims of abuse
the way I have, they will tell you they are often doubly
victimized. First, they are victimized by the event itself
and then victimized by the way the system treats them.
That is exactly what happened in the investigation of Tailhook in
1992.
I had hoped, as the only Democratic woman in the Senate at that time,
that America had learned a lesson on sexual harassment; that harassment
is not a form of irritability, it is a form of humiliation, it is a
form of battery. And in the case of Tailhook, it was actually a form of
sexual assault and even borderline, if not actual, rape.
So there is the Navy, there is the military, having gone through it,
as we have.
There is no place in the world that does not have a TV set that does
not know about the hearings on Anita Hill and that sexual harassment in
this issue was the subject of national debate and international debate
and global focus, except when it came to investigating Tailhook.
And who got what promotion in 1992? Well, hey, it is about time that
lessons need to be learned. And I hope, once again, we do not flunk the
test in the U.S. Senate. Where are we ever going to be heard? Where
will we ever be protected?
Now, who asked the Armed Services Committee to retire Admiral Kelso
above the law, above the grade guaranteed? It was the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the head of the Joint Chiefs, and
our President. They brought it over. They had this hearing.
But, guess what? It did not dawn on them that maybe this is going to
be a problem. Well, it is a big problem.
And an even bigger problem is that the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy, the head of the Joint Chiefs and the President
did not remember that once before the U.S. Senate had flunked the test
on sexual harassment, and now there were seven of us, along with
several very fine men, who were going to raise this issue.
Now, if they did not get it with Anita Hill and if they did not want
to bring this issue up, we would not be on this floor had they not gone
to the Armed Services Committee. Now they said, ``Well, we have cut a
deal and the deal is the admiral retires early and we will close the
books.''
We did not cut a deal.
I cut a deal with the American people: To stand up and be an
independent Senator. And if it means taking on a Democratic
administration, and their lack of judgment on this matter, then by God
I am willing to do it, because somewhere they have to understand they
cannot expect these matters to just glide through the U.S. Senate. It
is no longer business as it was in 1991, or in 1891. It is over. And
the Presiding Officer in the Chair knows exactly of what I speak.
We might win tonight and we might not. The vote could be a very close
one. I hope our colleagues would reexamine what had been the lessons
learned since 1991, and are we still going to operate as in 1891, or as
a 1994 Senate?
I have nothing but the greatest respect for the U.S. military and for
the men and women who serve in it and for the families who love them
and support them. When a President of the United States calls 911, they
have to be ready to go anywhere in the world, make enormous sacrifices,
and put their lives on the line.
This new world order is indeed a new world of disorder. We have men
and women involved in peacekeeping, peace enforcing, standing sentry in
all parts of the world, often with little backup and support. And in
the days and weeks ahead we might even be calling them forth to do
more.
Why is it that we count on our military? Because they are brave;
because they are courageous; and because we believe that they are
something special. We look to them in some ways to be the model for the
rest of society. Why? Because in a time where American society seems to
be falling apart, where we seem to have lost our way in terms of
values, the U.S. military has always stood as having a code of honor
and a code of conduct. We want the U.S. military to have that
reputation. We want the entire Nation and the entire world to know that
our U.S. military has that code of conduct and that code of honor.
I believe what has happened is that because of old habits, old
attitudes, and a very old and dying culture, that change needs to
occur. I believe one of the changes that will occur is that when we
vote, we say that two stars are enough for Admiral Kelso, and we hope
that never again will this Senate have to deal with the bungled matter
on things related to sexual harassment or discrimination of any kind,
or scandal that brings dishonor to the U.S. military or to any aspect
of the United States Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. MATHEWS. Madam President, I see Senator Smith here. Does the
Senator seek time on this question?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, I do.
Mr. MATHEWS. On behalf of the Senator from Nebraska, I yield such
time as Senator Smith might require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, this has been quite an emotional debate.
I rise today, maybe in a calmer manner, to pay tribute to the departing
Chief of Naval Operations, and to urge my colleagues to support the
recommendation of the Armed Services Committee that Adm. Frank Kelso be
permitted to retire in grade as a four-star admiral, a grade that I
believe he has earned.
Admiral Kelso is completing 38 years of distinguished service to our
Nation. His career is an American success story, from his commissioning
as an ensign from the Naval Academy in June 1956 to his final tour as
Chief of Naval Operations. Although the seas have at times been
turbulent, Admiral Kelso has always brought a steady hand and
unshakable spirit of loyalty and integrity to our U.S. Navy.
In assessing Admiral Kelso's suitability for retirement in grade,
some have sought to denigrate his distinguished career by applying to
him an unrealistic standard of accountability for the Tailhook affair.
I want to say as others have said, especially the comments made by
Senator Nunn earlier today, that event was a disgusting event and no
one I know of condones it or anything that happened there.
While I share the outrage of my colleagues and, indeed, the American
people over this incident, it would be unfair and inappropriate to
tarnish 38 years of exemplary service under the guise of some lofty
theory of accountability without specific evidence to the contrary. As
Defense Secretary Perry and Senator Nunn have emphasized, the primary
issue with respect to accountability involves the question of due
diligence.
I have reviewed the data on the Tailhook affair as is my
responsibility on the committee that I serve. Admiral Kelso's actions
in conjunction with the event lead me to the conclusion that Admiral
Kelso acted responsibly to investigate Tailhook and eradicate the root
causes of sexual harassment in the Navy. Those are facts. There is
nothing emotional about it. It does not make a lot of headlines. But
those are the facts--he has.
Clearly, the Tailhook issue is germane to our deliberations here
today. However, it is but one of many issues that must be examined in
the context of a 38-year career, especially when you talk about taking
two stars away from a distinguished military officer. While reasonable
people can disagree over Tailhook and the issue of ultimate
accountability, I think it is important to emphasize certain other
aspects of Admiral Kelso's career that are beyond reproach and directly
relevant to the issue at hand. To be fair, those who seek to hold
Admiral Kelso accountable for Tailhook, must also consider his
achievements as a naval officer to render an informed judgment on his
retirement.
During the last 8 years, Admiral Kelso has served in the grade of
Admiral. According to the Secretary of Navy, Admiral Kelso has been at
the forefront of the Navy's intellectual growth and social-cultural
change in the post-cold-war restructuring. Let me give some examples of
his strong leadership.
As commander-in-chief of the Atlantic fleet, he took the lead role in
integrating women in combat logistic force ships, thereby expanding
opportunities for women in the Navy. Again it is somewhat sad--and
ironic, perhaps, but sad as well--that this has become a gender issue
on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is not a gender issue.
I can assure my colleagues, if I felt Admiral Kelso was in any way
connected with Tailhook, condoned it, was involved with it, covered it
up or any of the above, I would not be here supporting him, period.
I look upon my colleagues of the opposite sex, who have spoken today,
as U.S. Senators. Not female U.S. Senators, U.S. Senators.
I hope we would be looked upon as U.S. Senators, here today, those of
us who happen to be male through circumstances beyond our control.
Admiral Kelso led the DOD humanitarian response to Hurricane Hugo in
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina, receiving a
personal commendation from Secretary Cheney for the effectiveness and
speed of this unprecedented mission.
He established a new focus for Navy forces in littoral areas of the
world and developed the from-the-sea doctrine.
He published the Navy policy book, which is the first comprehensive
reference to the guiding values and principles of the Navy in 92 years.
And, of interest to many of my colleagues today, regarding the
assignment and promotion of women, under Admiral Kelso's leadership.
The percentage of naval officers who are women increased from 10.8 to
12.3 percent.
The percentage of enlisted personnel who are women increased from 10
to 10.7 percent.
Seven women have become commanding officers of ships, whereas none
were commanding ships prior to 1990.
Small strides, some may say, but strides. Maybe not enough for some,
but strides.
Three women have become commanding officers of aviation squadrons,
whereas none were prior to 1990.
Three women have become commanding officers of major naval stations,
whereas none were prior to 1990.
One woman has assumed the command of a naval base, whereas there were
none prior to 1990.
Two women have become brigade commanders at the Naval Academy,
whereas there were none prior to 1990.
Frankly, with this kind of a record, Admiral Kelso deserves a lot
better than some of the comments and treatment he has received today on
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Nine women have been promoted to flag rank.
Three women aviators have been promoted to captain, whereas none were
prior to 1990.
Adm. Frank Kelso has put teeth into the zero tolerance policy of
sexual harassment by directing that all individuals found guilty of one
incident of aggravated sexual harassment are automatically processed
for discharge. So far, 85 officers and enlisted personnel have been
discharged under the new policy, and the everyday working environment
for Navy women has improved dramatically.
I heard all these comments today that there is no accountability
here. A Secretary of the Navy lost his job over this issue. People have
been disciplined over this issue.
Admiral Kelso recommended that combat exclusion laws be repealed
completely. Congress repealed some laws, and all ship types, except
submarines and mine sweepers, are now open to women. This all took
place under Frank Kelso, I say to my colleagues.
Under Frank Kelso's leadership, all combat aviation squadrons have
been open to women.
The first combat pilot has qualified aboard the carrier Eisenhower.
And 63 women aviators are either in the combat aviation pipeline or
already in combat squadrons.
That is a remarkable record. It is a record that we ought to be out
here praising Admiral Kelso for and commending Admiral Kelso for and
thanking Admiral Kelso for in his retirement. Instead, we are out here
saying we need to take two stars from Admiral Kelso because of one
incident that has not been clearly--in any way clearly--linked to
Admiral Kelso, No. 1; and, No. 2, on the contrary, has been in one case
and one very strong investigation by the Navy itself and by the
Secretary of the Navy and others, and the Secretary of Defense, found
not involved in it at all.
Madam President, in and of itself these things I have just cited are
an impressive record of achievement. But it should also be noted that
from January to July 1993, Admiral Kelso performed distinguished
service beyond his grade as the Acting Secretary of the Navy. Thus, he
shouldered two extremely demanding positions simultaneously, and still
kept our Navy on track and functioning smoothly. Would anyone like to
think about how difficult it is to be the Chief of Naval Operations and
the Secretary of the Navy at the same time? The man was asked to do
that after Tailhook, I might add. What do we want to do now? Take two
stars away from him. Maybe somebody is on a wave length that I am not
understanding here, but I have not been able to figure it out.
I would like to reference Admiral Kelso's declarations and
commendations, as well. Not too much has been said about them today. He
has been awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy
Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service,
Navy Commendation, and Navy Achievement medals.
During his 38 years of selfless devotion to duty and to country, Adm.
Frank Kelso also found the time to marry and raise a family. Along with
his wife, Landess, Admiral Kelso helped raise four children: Tom, a
lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Medical Corps; Don, a Navy lieutenant
commander; Mary, who is married to a Navy lieutenant; and Kerry, a
student attending college. He has effectively balanced the rigors of a
military career with the responsibility and commitment to family that
is so important to our society.
And lest you think it is just the official duties that he had to do,
Admiral Kelso, I have seen at many functions, at the Naval Academy and
other places, working with people. And he also took the time out of a
very busy schedule to say some nice remarks at the funeral of my mother
at Arlington National Cemetery last summer.
Madam President, let me conclude my remarks with some other personal
observations. During my 10 years in Congress, I have known Adm. Frank
Kelso both personally and professionally. He is a man of utmost
integrity, honesty, and dedication. If he said he was not involved in
Tailhook, he was not involved in it. He is not that kind of man. It is
about time we stop demeaning people's character and record around here
and look at what they say, and look and judge them on the actions that
they have taken.
He is extremely intelligent, and has shown great courage and
foresight in challenging outdated cultural and strategic assumptions
with the Navy bureaucracy. He has provided a steady hand in both times
of war and peace, and his initiatives to streamline and modernize our
naval programs have been instrumental in maintaining the readiness and
combat effectiveness of our Navy.
I believe--and I will go on record right here and now saying it--that
history will look very kindly upon this great man as a man of vision,
of dedication and uncompromising professionalism, and yes--and yes--
great service to improving the lot of women in the U.S. Navy.
I urge my colleagues to support the recommendation of the very
distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator
Nunn; a very distinguished Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry; and those
of us on the Armed Services Committee who took the time to dig into the
facts of this case, to review it properly, and give it a proper
hearing. None of us would be out here today supporting this nomination,
this four-star retirement, if it was anything else other than what we
have indicated.
I urge my colleagues to approve the retirement of Adm. Frank Kelso in
grade as a four-star admiral and allow him to retire and pursue a life
after the Navy and after this great service to his country. To do
anything other than that would be a terrible, terrible act, in my
opinion, that would reflect upon a career and reflect upon the service,
frankly, in such a way that I think it could influence others perhaps
to look the other way the next time their country calls. It is not the
way to treat an officer of this kind of distinction. I understand the
motivations; I understand the emotions; and I understand the concerns.
If they were true, I would agree. But they are not true. They are not
true. That is it. Pure and simple.
Frank Kelso was not involved in Tailhook; understanding he was not
involved, and if you do not know that he was, you ought not be out here
on the floor of the Senate demeaning the man's character. He was not
involved, period.
I urge my colleagues to support Admiral Kelso retiring at the grade
of four-star. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. EXON. Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Exon has 15 minutes; Senator Mikulski
has 25 minutes.
Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield to that side for any more comments,
reserving the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be deducted
equally from both sides.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time equally
divided on both sides.
Mr. EXON. Madam President, I object to that. If I had twice as much
time as we had on this side, I would suggest the absence of a quorum
and suggest the time be equally divided. Then it would run out and they
would have the last say so. So I object to that.
I am pleased to recognize the Senator from Alaska, who indicated he
may wish some additional remarks.
Did the Senator wish to make them at this time?
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to make my comments again. I say to my
friend that I agree. I sort of think the other side with all the time--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. EXON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I understand the Senator from
California [Mrs. Boxer], made some comment about my earlier remarks.
She said that I was angry. I agree with that. The balance of her
comments I do not agree with. Too bad she was not here to hear me
before she criticized my remarks.
I highlighted for the Senate the views of Secretary John Dalton on
this nomination. But let me now talk about the Secretary of Defense
Bill Perry. He testified before the Armed Services Committee on April
12 on this nomination, and I emphasize again it is not really a
nomination; it is a confirmation. This man has been a four-star admiral
for some time now. But Secretary Perry stressed to the Senate Admiral
Kelso's leadership in combating sexual harassment in the Navy. Let me
quote what he said:
One of the factors that gives me confidence that the
Department can deal with this problem is the fact that the
senior leadership of the military departments recognize the
problem and have developed momentum in dealing with it. At
the top of that leadership list is Admiral Frank Kelso. In
his capacity as Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Kelso has
been aggressive and consistent in addressing this problem.
I am still quoting Secretary Perry.
During his almost 4 years as Chief of Naval Operations, he
has taken the lead with action to deal with sexual
harassment:
In September 1990, he sent a message to all Navy personnel
to reemphasize the Navy's ``zero tolerance'' policy on sexual
harassment.
In November 1991, he directed the Chief of Naval Personnel
to develop new enforcement procedures for the ``zero
tolerance'' policy, including mandatory discharge processing
of those found guilty of aggravated or repeated instances of
sexual harassment.
In February 1992, he established new enforcement policies,
including discharge processing after the first substantiated
incident of aggravated sexual harassment.
Secretary Perry described his role as Deputy Secretary of Defense in
reviewing the Department's investigation of Tailhook. This is the
current Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry. He observed:
In October 1993, as the then Deputy Secretary of Defense, I
was asked by the former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to
review the files prepared by the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense that pertained to Admiral Kelso. I took
the time to read the complete file. My conclusion--then as it
is now--was that Admiral Kelso's veracity was supported by
the full reading of the files.
Now, that is the Secretary of Defense. The President has presented
this. Many of us are here supporting the President when those who are
on his side of the aisle are not supporting him at all. I wonder really
what is going to happen here concerning these nominations.
Secretary Perry told the Armed Services Committee:
Admiral Kelso could have chosen an additional judicial
forum to resolve conflicts between the military judge and the
Inspector General's conclusions. He chose rather to spare the
Navy yet another drawn out hearing with attendant costs and
distractions. He chose to let the Navy focus on the real
issue--eliminating sexual harassment and assuring the
opportunity to military women in the Navy. I believe his
choice is an honorable one, symbolic of this honorable
officer's proud career.
Why is not the Secretary of Defense being listened to? He testified
that he personally read every file pertaining to Admiral Kelso. Mr.
Perry went on to say:
On that basis, I believe Admiral Kelso is a man of personal
integrity who has served 38 years with loyalty to the men and
women of the United States Navy, his Commanders in Chief, and
the American people. I urge this committee to approve his
retirement at the rank of admiral.
I cannot find any better words than Secretary Perry used. If that
makes me an angry man, then put me down as an angry man. I really think
that people ought to get angry out here once in a while. And this
instance makes me angry. It makes me think that people are using a
dedicated career servant as a symbol, as a symbol of their position on
sexual harassment when this man did something about it. If the people
who are talking about Admiral Kelso today had done what he has done
with his career to deal with sexual harassment, to change the policies
of the Navy, to bring about an important role for women in the Navy,
then I would listen to them a lot better, without getting angry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. EXON. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 9 minutes 30
seconds; the Senator from Maryland has 25 minutes.
Mr. EXON. Twenty-five minutes on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. EXON. I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one seeks recognition, time will be
equally divided from both sides.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. Why not just request in this instance that this time be
charged proportionally to the amount of time remaining. Why should we
sit here----
Mr. EXON. I would be happy to offer that if it would be--I was about
to say that since 12:30 this afternoon, this Senator has been trying to
get time constraints so that we could move. Here we are, 8 o'clock at
night. We could have had this vote, I think, at 6 and the outcome would
have been the same. I even agreed, I say to my friend from Alaska, to
take less time, to try to accommodate the Senate. Any time you try to
accommodate the other side, you find yourself in a situation where,
because you agreed to equal time, the time runs out and you do not have
any chance to make any last-minute response to the opposition.
Now, I understood when we entered into the time agreement that most
or all of the time which was insisted on by that side was all lined up.
They had all the names there, and they did not think they would
possibly get it in in the time allowed. Here we are waiting and waiting
and waiting, and I think this is not the proper way to conduct the
business of the Senate.
I would ask, since we are way short of time on the other side, that
the time in a quorum call be charged exclusively to the side that has
the most time remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been made.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the Senator from Washington yield me
1 minute?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Kentucky has 1 minute.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I am trying to work with my distinguished
friend from Nebraska. We have some Senators who wish to speak and
probably will be here in the next minute or two, and once they have
completed, I think we can accommodate the Senator from Nebraska as it
relates to the time. Until that is cleared, we will not be able to. So
if he will just bear with us, I think we will work it out in due time
and that within moments we will have a Senator here to take the time on
the other side.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Kentucky for his usual good help. I
have no other option under the circumstances but to agree with him.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Illinois as much
time as she will use on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the
Senator from Washington very much.
In light of the fact that we have an agreement that we will not vote
until 8:30, rather than just let this time go by, I thought I would
take a moment, even though I have already spoken on this issue, to at
least, hopefully, give some clarity to the position of those who oppose
granting four-star status for Admiral Kelso's retirement.
The issue as I see it, Mr. President, is simply this: Are we in the
U.S. Senate prepared to give a golden parachute to leadership that
failed to act appropriately in response to Tailhook? It is just that
simple.
In my earlier statement I made a reference, or an analogy, to private
sector retirements. We have seen it happen before, when someone is
called on to retire from the CEO position because the corporation has
fallen apart, the stock has plummeted, or when someone is called upon
to retire because of some misconduct that he--normally he; I started to
say he or she--may not have been directly involved with, but certainly
had operational authority and responsibility over.
In those situations the hue and cry goes forward, Mr. President, when
those individuals are given what is called a golden parachute, are
given an extra benefit, something that in the South we sometimes called
the little something extra, for purposes of their retirement; a hue and
cry goes for it because the people have a sense of the unfairness of
that in that it is your watch.
If something major has gone wrong during your watch; if somehow in
the discharge of your responsibilities, either your responsibilities to
the taxpayers, or your responsibilities to the stockholders, or your
responsibilities to the American people; if you have failed to
discharge your responsibility, and have failed to use the authority
that comes with your office to see to it that a culture exists in the
organization that is respectful of people based on gender; if you fail
to do that, then, no, we will not give you the little something extra.
No, we will not give you the bonus. No, we will not give you the golden
parachute.
That, Mr. President, is the issue today. I know there has been a lot
of back and forth over whether or not Admiral Kelso is an honorable
man. I am certain he is. I do not know the admiral personally, but I am
sure in his 38 years of service he has done some terrific things. And
whether or not he has tried to change the culture, yes, there have been
some changes on the books. Yes, there have been some changes in a few
promotions. And no one is trying, I think, in this effort to detract in
any way from the positive things that this admiral has contributed.
But I daresay, Mr. President, it would be a huge mistake for us to
ignore the negative things that accompany this admiral's retirement
from the Navy. Tailhook is one of the most significant scandals,
particularly with regard to gender inequality--or gender equity; the
flip side of it--one of the most significant scandals of our time. That
is clear to everyone who has followed this debate.
Given that fact, is it not appropriate for this body to hold the
chief operating officer, if you will, the CEO, or the CNO of the Navy,
responsible for the failures of responsibility on the one hand, and the
failure to exercise his authority on the other?
It seems to me this is not a question of punishment for punishment.
This is a question, are we going to give a little something extra? Are
we going to give a golden parachute to Admiral Kelso? The answer that
comes from those of us who suggest that he should retire with the two-
star rank that he properly holds, is no, he should not be given a
golden parachute. No, he should not be rewarded that Tailhook has so
far gone along and the efforts have been made to sweep it under the
rug.
It will not be swept, Mr. President. It will not be swept. It will
lay there like a huge lump in the middle of the room under the rug
unless we take action here in this U.S. Senate to do something about
it; to send a signal not just to the military, not just to the military
brass, but to send a signal to the American people that this is a new
day; that times really have changed, that we are no longer content to
stand by and watch women treated as less than equal citizens whether it
is in the military, or in our social order, or in any walk of life
whatsoever; that we are prepared at this point to make a firm statement
with real consequences, not just words on a piece of paper; not just a
new directive, a new memoranda that gets lost with all the other
directives and memoranda.
But we are prepared to make a firm statement here in this U.S. Senate
that the kind of assaults, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual
abuse, gender inequality, gender discrimination that Tailhook
represented will never again happen in the U.S. military, in the U.S.
Navy, indeed in any instrument of Government over which this U.S.
Senate has any say or control.
That is the issue before the Senate this afternoon. Is it personal as
to this gentleman? Well, it is a personal consequence. But I daresay
that in any circumstance, when we stand and when you hold high public
office, whether it is as an elected official or an appointed official,
as a career officer--when you hold high public office, there is an
accountability and a responsibility that goes with it. You enjoy the
emoluments and the benefits of that office, but you also take the
responsibilities of that office.
As the folks back home say, you take the bitter with the better.
Well, the bitter here is that because there has been no accountability
for Tailhook, because there was no responsibility for Tailhook, because
we have seen nothing happen except sweeping this ugly matter under the
rug, because of that, the person who was in charge, the person at whose
desk the buck stopped, has to be responsible in some way.
And whether this is considered to be symbolic or not, the issue is
that symbols are important. The issue is that this action by the U.S.
Senate is important, because what it will say to the American people is
that we are serious about this matter, that we are not prepared to see
the rug with the lump in the middle any longer; we are prepared to say,
yes, there is accountability, and the chain of command means just
that--that when you get to the top of the chain, someone is responsible
for what has happened along the way.
What happened at Tailhook must never happen again. The anger that you
have heard from women on both sides of the aisle--on both sides of the
aisle, I point out--on this issue is born of a frustration that women
have throughout this Nation over the lack of sensitivity, the
incapacity to see why this is important. Who is the victim here? I know
there has been conversation about that. It is not just Admiral Kelso
and his family. Nobody wishes them ill. But the victim here is our
entire social fabric if we do not get to the point to say that, yes,
there has to be accountability and responsibility for sexual
misconduct, for sexual discrimination, for gender discrimination, as
there is for other kinds of discrimination that are not permissible in
our society.
That is where the victimization has happened here, and that is the
wrong that I believe we have to right this evening.
So, Mr. President, this is a matter of accountability. This is a
matter not of trying to take it out on one person, but rather to say
that where goes the authority also goes the responsibility. As that
responsibility is being placed, we in the Senate believe that
responsibility and accountability are the same thing, and that the
accountability for Tailhook rests with the Navy brass. It is just that
simple.
Mr. President, I yield time to my colleague, and I thank my colleague
from Washington for giving me this opportunity to extemporize on this
issue. I say in closing that I have sensed confusion among some of the
colleagues on this issue. This is not anyone trying to be nasty to
anybody else.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
Mr. EXON. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 6 minutes. The
Senator from Illinois has yielded to the Senator from Alaska for a
question.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to ask the Senator a question that is a simple
one. Does the Senator realize this man tried to take this
responsibility himself personally at the time of the discovery of
Tailhook and asked to resign? Did the Senator know that?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I did.
Mr. STEVENS. Did the Senator know he has stayed on at the request of
his supervisors now for a period of almost 2 years and has conducted
himself impeccably as an officer during that period?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. To the Senator from Alaska, I am aware that
Admiral Kelso offered to resign.
Mr. STEVENS. He did take the blame you say he should have taken as
the top Navy officer, but he was ordered to stay on duty. And had he
retired then, he would have left with a four-star rank.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Well, then I submit to the Senator that he should
have gone with his original instincts in this regard and accepted the
retirement at the time instead of standing by and waiting to have that
decision overturned by those who were less sensitive even than he.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest that those who want to discipline him should
discipline his superiors who asked him to stay.
Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield, I want to speak to this point
again because it has been brought up several times. Yes, he could have
resigned as he requested several years ago. We cannot predict what
could have happened on a vote of the Senate several years ago. He may
well indeed have retired with four stars, and it may have come to a
debate for a different reason. Things could have been different. We
cannot predict what could have happened 3 years ago.
We have in front of us today the question of whether or not this U.S.
Senate will yield this man an additional two stars with the knowledge
that we have. And some of these reports have just come to us in the
last several months and, indeed, some of them in the last few weeks. We
have to base our vote tonight on the knowledge that we have in front of
us, and that is what we are debating, and that is why we are saying to
our colleagues that we will allow him to retire with his two stars. And
it is with honor that he retires. However, we cannot add an additional
two stars to that and give him an honor above and beyond that at this
time.
I thank the Chair.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. In conclusion, again, I say to my colleagues that
it is no accident that all of the women of this Chamber are of one mind
about this issue. That is no accident. We have found in the last year
and a half that I have been here women in this Chamber have not really
voted as a block on many issues. We have been separated on issues as
diverse as--I will not go into them, but on just about every issue. In
fact, when asked whether or not we as women voted as a block, I think
the answer has consistently been that we vote on issues, and where we
come together on issues, then you can call that a block if you want,
but generally we vote our conscience and constituency and what we
believe is the principled position on issues before the U.S. Senate.
I say to you that it is no accident that on this issue there is
unanimity of opinion among those who are on the receiving end of this
scandalous activity. Tailhook represents the most reprehensible, the
worst aspect of women in the workplace, and that is sexual harassment--
sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and sexual assault. This took it all
the way out as far as you could go.
Why is it an issue for women? Let me digress. Let me talk about why
this issue is important. It is important because, at its base, it is an
issue both about dignity on the one hand and about economics on the
other. If women are going to be able to participate in the work force
as equal partners, to have the opportunity to function and to move
through the ranks or the corporation or whatever, then it has to be
based on merit, it has to be based on qualifications and capability and
what they bring to the job with their minds and their spirit and
inventiveness and creativity and not on the fact that they have
breasts, that they have a smaller waist and hips, or that they walk
cute. The days when women are characterized or limited in the workplace
by gender have to be over; they have to be over. It has to get to the
point where, as women, we are respected and regarded for what it is
that we bring to the work force in our professional capacity, and not
otherwise.
Tailhook represented, at best, a situation of gender insensitivity
and gender inequality. At worst, it was a matter of absolute assault.
That is why the feelings are so strong on this issue, and that is why
the women of this body are of one mind: That there must be some
responsibility and accountability of Admiral Kelso with regard to this
matter. The Senator raised the question: Why was this not taken up 2
years ago, and what if he had resigned then and if he decided to do
otherwise and if the superior officers said, ``We are ready to take
your resignation?'' In response, I say the kids at home say if grandma
had wheels, she would be a bicycle. ``If'' is not relevant here. What
is relevant is that he did not resign. He has come to this body at this
time, in the presence of seven women in the U.S. Senate, asking for a
golden parachute.
We say ``no'' to that.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes, I yield for a question.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator think Admiral Kelso is here asking? The
President of the United States is asking the Senator to confirm him in
the rank he held for 5 years. That is the difference. The Senator does
not understand it.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator from Illinois is going to defer so
that I can calm down.
I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will indicate the Senator from
Maryland has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, during this entire debate, the women of the Senate and
the men who support us in this cause have attempted to conduct this
debate with civility and courtesy.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois knows full well that the
President of the United States made this request. We know full well it
was the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Navy, and the Joint Chiefs.
We know that.
That does not make a difference. The fact is--and the Senator from
Illinois knows that full well--we the women of the Senate are not
stupid. We know the rules. We know the rules better than most people
because we have to live by them and often we are held to a different
standard and a higher standard ourselves.
Now we are being criticized because we are raising the Kelso issue
and raising the retirement issue of Admiral Kelso beyond that which he
was guaranteed by law.
Now, Mr. President, we are going to return in the concluding hours of
this debate to the civility and to the dignity that this occasion calls
for, and we ask all who participate to do the same.
This is about the honor code and the code of conduct, and this is not
about whether Senator Moseley-Braun gets it. Senator Moseley-Braun gets
it. It is whether the rest of the Senate gets it.
There are those who would say that somehow or other we are the
problem for raising this. I must bring to everyone's attention it is
not the Senate pulling Admiral Kelso down. It is the U.S. Navy that let
Admiral Kelso down. It is the U.S. Navy that had the Tailhook incident
in the first place. It is the U.S. Navy that bungled the investigation.
It is the U.S. Navy that had the buddy system over the honor system. It
was the U.S. Navy who torpedoed Admiral Kelso. It was not the women of
the Navy, and it was not the women of the U.S. Senate. It was his own
Navy that torpedoed him.
I yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank very much Senator Mikulski. I do not want
to interrupt the Senator. I thought she was going to head in another
direction.
I wanted to raise the point, as she did, about knowing and raising
the rules.
It was my understanding that the rules of this body suggest that we
refrain from ad hominem attacks on other Senators. An ad hominem
attack, in my view, means suggesting that a Senator who is speaking to
an issue does not know the facts pertaining to that issue.
I would suggest to the Senator from Alaska that not only do I know
the facts pertaining to this issue, but that it defines chauvinism, if
the Senator will look that up in the dictionary. It defines chauvinism
to suggest that I do not in the context of this debate.
I yield the floor back to the Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, we must change the
culture, and this very debate is about changing the culture.
We hope we win this. But whether we win the vote or not, we feel that
we have won a victory here today because we have raised this issue to
show that from now on when we look at what is going to happen in
promotions and in retirements and in rewards, the issues will be
raised, and they will be raised not only about the United States
military, they will be raised about the FBI, they will be raised about
the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, they will be raised about Social
Security, they will be raised about the gender discrimination going on
at the National Institutes of Health. They will be raised. We would
hope that whoever is President and whoever is in his Cabinet or her
Cabinet knows that we are serious and these are serious matters.
We hope now that in the concluding minutes of this debate we reflect
on the fact that Admiral Kelso is being recommended for four stars, two
stars above the law in which he is guaranteed two stars for retirement.
Now if we are just going to pass everyone through because of the way
they want to retire in grade, then change the law, but do not change
the rules now and do not try to change the tradition that essentially
the vote of giving additional stars is meant to be a reward for
extraordinary service, and there is no doubt there is much to commend
us for Admiral Kelso but it is the U.S. Navy that torpedoed him and not
the women of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maryland has also
expired.
The Senator from Nebraska has 5 minutes and 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, is that all the time that remains on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is all time remaining on both sides. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
I say to the Chair that the Senator from Nebraska is going to try and
be as reserved, considerate, and congenial as possible. But I must tell
you, Mr. President, that having served 16 years now in the U.S. Senate,
I guess I have never seen a time when I think the Senate might be on
the verge of creating one of the greatest injustices that the U.S.
Senate has ever created.
I have been listening to the statements that have been made here, and
it finally came home completely. The statements that I think I jotted
down, and I think the Record will show that they were made, say we are
sweeping the Tailhook under the rug. Tailhook must never happen again.
I agree with that. It is a golden parachute for the admiral. Women are
less than equal citizens. And women must be treated fairly. I agree
with that statement. They must be treated fairly in the workplace. We
must be prepared to make a firm statement. Now, that is some statement
to make. We must be prepared to make a firm statement.
What this all amounts to is that Admiral Frank Kelso, 38 years of
dedicated service to the United States of America, recommended for the
four-star position by a gentleman called Bill Clinton, President of the
United States, leader of the Democratic Party, his Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the inspector general of the
Department of Defense, all of that can go by, 38 years down the drain,
and the newspapers tomorrow if they are accurate and we turn this down
will probably say ``Kelso sacrificed for a symbol.''
I think that is wrong. I am upset about it. I think we have Frank
Kelso on trial when he should not be. Frank Kelso is a dedicated,
decent human being. He is a father and I suspect a grandfather. He is a
type of man you would like to have in your home. Yet we are about to
consider whether or not we are going to sacrifice Frank Kelso and all
that he stands for for a symbol.
That is wrong under whatever guise we consider it in the U.S. Senate.
I hope that we will vote to support Frank Kelso, and I hope that I do
not see a time when I think the U.S. Senate deteriorates as much as it
has in this instance to try and seek a symbol.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I intend to
support the retirement of Admiral Kelso at a grade of four stars. I
agree with President Clinton, with the Secretary of Defense, and with
the overwhelming majority of the members on the Armed Services
Committee that Admiral Kelso has earned a 4-star retirement for his 38
years of service to our country.
But, Mr. President, let me also be clear on another point: Sexual
harassment is wrong, period. And it is doubly wrong when it occurs
within the ranks of our Nation's armed services.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal opportunity just for men. It
means opportunity for all Americans--black and white, Hispanic and
Asian, male and female. And if the women of this country are to enjoy
the full promise of America, they deserve nothing less than a workplace
free of discrimination and free of sexual harassment.
That is why I introduced a bill in 1991--the Women's Equal
Opportunity Act--that sought to close a loophole in title VII by
providing a monetary remedy for the victims of workplace sexual
harassment. A monetary remedy was ultimately included in the 1991 civil
rights law.
Now, no one has accused Admiral Kelso of engaging in sexual
harassment himself. No one has accused him of linking job promotions or
job advancement to the performance of sexual favors. No one has accused
Admiral Kelso of himself engaging in the type of despicable activity
that took place at the Tailhook convention.
If Admiral Kelso is guilty of anything, he is guilty of a sin of
omission, rather than the act itself. Could he have been more
aggressive in pursuing Tailhook? Of course. Could he have been more
responsive to the charges of misconduct? You bet. Should he have shown
more sensitivity? Absolutely.
But the bottom line is that no one has accused Admiral Kelso of
himself engaging in any of the misdeeds that made Tailhook such an
embarrassment to the Navy--and to our country.
Mr. President, Naval tradition holds that the ``captain'' is
responsible for everything that happens on ``his watch.'' I have no
problem with holding the Admiral to this standard, but when Admiral
Kelso offered to resign in the wake of Tailhook, he was persuaded by
several Members of Congress to stay on, pending the appointment of a
new Secretary of the Navy. These Members knew Admiral Kelso to be a man
of integrity who had always served his country honorably--and that is
why they prevailed upon him to remain at his post. If Admiral Kelso
deserved to be punished for the misguided actions of his subordinates,
this punishment should have been meted out a long time ago, and not
here on the Senate floor.
We have come a long way since Tailhook. And we still have some
distance to go--not just in the military but in the larger society as
well. No doubt about it, Tailhook happened on Admiral Kelso's watch,
and Naval tradition holds him responsible--A responsibility he readily
accepts. But, Mr. President, I am not so sure what will be gained by
taking one, or two, or even three stars away from an officer who has
served our Nation with honor and with distinction for more than three
decades.
I understand that, in a broad sense, he is probably responsible. But
the thing that troubles me is he could have left a couple of years ago
and had four stars, but he was persuaded by Members of Congress to stay
on to do his duty to his country, and now we want to penalize him. I
cannot reconcile that with the argument of many of my colleagues who
feel otherwise, who have a different view. They prevailed upon him to
remain in his post.
He is a man of integrity. He has served his country honorably for 38
years, and I do not think he deserves to be punished for the misguided
actions of his subordinates. If we are going to do that, we should have
meted out the punishment a long time ago, and not here on the Senate
floor.
I yield back my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee held a
hearing on April 12, which in my view was unprecedented. The Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Chairman of the joint
Chiefs of Staff all appeared before the committee to indicate their
strong support for the President's recommendation that Admiral Kelso be
retired in the grade of admiral. I want to take this opportunity to
commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn and
the ranking member, Senator Thurmond for holding that hearing. Members
of the committee had the opportunity to question the witnesses on their
views concerning Admiral Kelso's character and performance of duty as
well as his role and the allegations that have been made against him
regarding the tailhook incident. In my view, this hearing was extremely
valuable as the members of the committee considered the character and
performance of Admiral Kelso and reached their individual judgments on
whether or not to support the President's recommendation.
The Armed Services Committee held another open hearing to vote on the
President's recommendation to retire Admiral Kelso in the grade of
admiral. At the outset of that hearing, the chairman of the committee
delivered one of the most courageous statements I have heard during my
15 years tenure on the committee. I recommended earlier that all
members read Senator Nunn's statement prior to voting. His statement
can be found in the Record of April 14, 1994, on page S4366.
Mr. President, during the Armed Services Committee hearing on April
12, I asked the Secretary of Defense, Dr. William Perry, and the
Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton, the following question:
Will a decision by this committee to accept the
recommendation of the President be in any way interpreted as
a step back or a slowdown or any impediment in the efforts
that you, Secretary Perry, and that you, Secretary Dalton,
are endeavoring today to assure that the quality of life for
women is equal in every respect to that of male members of
the military?
Secretary Perry indicated his own commitment to continuing that
progress and further stated, ``no, it will not impede that progress.''
Secretary Dalton replied, ``Senator, I am convinced that, indeed,
this committee voting in favor of Admiral Kelso's four-star retirement
would not be viewed as a step backward. As a matter of fact, DACOWITS,
the women's committee on women in the armed forces, particularly
endorsed the fact that Admiral Kelso should retire in grade.''
Those who have a genuine interest in the advancement of opportunities
for women have indicated their strong support for Admiral Kelso and the
initiatives he has taken to increase opportunities for women in the
Navy. The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
[DACOWITS] and the Women Officers Professional Association have both
written letters supporting Admiral Kelso and his retirement in the
grade of admiral.
Earlier today, I referred to a question I asked of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, whether the men and
women of the U.S. military would view it as an act of fairness if this
committee and the Senate were to reject the request of the President to
retire Admiral Kelso with four stars. General Shalikashvili replied,
``I believe, without any hesitation, that they would not see that as a
fair act. They would see that as a reaction to something that was very
wrong at Tailhook, and trying to find someone to hold accountable for
it and that settling on Admiral Kelso. And that would not be correct,
nor considered fair.''
Mr. President, I believe that a vote against the nomination to retire
Admiral Kelso in grade as an admiral will have an adverse effect on the
personnel in the Navy who will see this as unfair. Sailors serving
around the world will view an unfavorable vote as an unfair attempt to
make Admiral Kelso the scapegoat for Tailhook.
Mr. President, Admiral Kelso's family will also be affected by
adverse action against Admiral Kelso--without any credible evidence of
wrongdoing on his part. The Members of the Senate who are speaking in
opposition to Admiral Kelso's retirement in grade, I'm sure are
insistent on fairness to others. I hope they will apply the same
standards of fairness to Admiral Kelso and his family.
Admiral Kelso has served with distinction in the Navy for 38 years.
He has been a flag officer for 14 years and a four-star admiral for 8
years. As has been stated several times on the floor today, Admiral
Kelso offered to retire 2 years ago when Tailhook occurred. He was
asked to remain on the job. He did so and made unprecedented progress
in the advancement of opportunities for women in the Navy.
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all recommended that Admiral Kelso be
retired at four-star rank. Today, President Clinton indicated again
that he continues to believe that Admiral Kelso should be retired in
the grade of admiral.
Mr. President, Admiral Kelso's naval career is marked by a very long
and personal commitment to equal opportunity for all members of the
Navy. I believe that Admiral Kelso's overall naval record warrants his
retirement in the grade of admiral and urge that the Senate confirm his
retirement in his present grade.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief resume of Admiral
Kelso's distinguished career be included in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the resume was ordered to
be printed in the Record, as follows:
Admiral Frank B. Kelso II
Thirty-eight years of distinguished Naval Service: 14 years
as a flag officer; 8 years as a four star.
Served as Commander, Sixth Fleet: Located, forced down and
apprehended terrorists who murdered an American citizen
aboard the Achille Lauro.
Served as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Served as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.
While CNO, also served as Acting Secretary of the Navy for
7 months Directed Navy/Marine Corps contribution to Bottom Up
Review.
Trained, equipped and readied Navy for Desert Shield/Storm:
Largest, most complex sealift since WW II.
Personally established a new focus for the employment of
naval forces in littoral areas through the ``. . . From the
Sea'' doctrine.
Preserved and reinforced Navy's core values of Honor,
Courage, and Commitment.
During his tenure as CNO, Navy made greatest gains in
history in rights and opportunity for women in the Navy.
As CINCLANTFLT, he integrated women into combat logistic
ships.
As CNO, he assigned women to all ships not closed to them
by law and successfully initiated legislation to change the
law to open more ships to women.
Successfully fought to put women in cockpit of combat
aircraft.
Formed Standing Committee on Military and Civilian Women in
the DoN.
Instituted policy of ``zero tolerance'' of sexual
harassment in the Navy, ie., automatic processing for
discharge of aggravated or repeat offenders.
While he has been CNO, for the first time women have
commanded ships, aviation squadrons, naval stations, a naval
base and brigades at the Naval Academy. Nine women have been
promoted to flag rank and three women aviators have been
promoted to Captain.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, nobody condones sexual assault or
harassment. Whether in uniform, in a business, or on the street, that
kind of conduct has no place in this society, period. That is beyond
question or debate.
But the question of whether to retire Adm. Frank Kelso in grade does
not turn on that issue.
As Senator Hutchison said in the Armed Services Committee, the
decision was a very close call, on which people of good intentions and
serious mind can reach different conclusions. It would be wrong for
anyone to ascribe motives to any Member beyond those to be found in the
evidence.
Admiral Kelso and his supporters admit that his term as Chief of
Naval Operations included an
uncharacteristic lapse of performance.
For that lapse, he was officially reprimanded and is being forced into
early retirement.
Nobody questions that life in the naval service is what Frank Kelso
loves. You can see that in his exemplary 38-year record. Others have
spoken in great detail of his career; I will say only that it involves
repeatedly volunteering for ever more difficult assignments, then
carrying them off professionally, effectively, and in the finest
military tradition.
The question before the Senate is whether an exemplary sailor with
one mark on his record should be denied the fruits of 38 years because
of that one incident.
In some cases, such a penalty may be justified. If Admiral Kelso had
run a deliberate coverup, or lied to his superiors, that would be
sufficient reason to tarnish an otherwise outstanding career. Indeed,
Secretary Perry told the committee that, if he believed Admiral Kelso
had lied about his role, his recommendation would have been very
different.
And Admiral Kelso agreed with that. By volunteering to resign, as he
did some 2 years ago, the admiral showed that he was willing to accept
responsibility. But because the DOD leadership knew that nobody had
done more to integrate the Navy than Frank Kelso, he was kept on, and
allowed to proceed with remedying the problems made so obvious at
Tailhook '91.
Therefore, Mr. President, the question comes down to which side has
the stronger case. On one hand, we have the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
the DOD inspector-general. On the other hand is the opinion of a
military judge who only heard half the case. The Secretaries and the
chairman are new to their posts, and have no stake, institutional or
personal, in seeing Admiral Kelso beat this or any rap. The judge was
not even allowed to hear testimony from the admiral, who was not even
represented in the courtroom. On that balance, I come down on the side
of the admiral's superiors.
I also go with my knowledge of the man. I have worked with him since
he became CNO. One may say many things about Frank Kelso, but nowhere
on that list will you find dishonesty, untruthfulness, or evasion. He
tells the truth with the bark off.
And he follows his beliefs with action. That is evident in his
commitment to making women an inseparable part of the naval service. On
Frank Kelso's watch, women were allowed on combat vessels. On his
watch, women were given the same job opportunities as men. On his
watch, the Navy began comprehensive training programs aimed at breaking
down sexual stereotypes and prejudice within the ranks. These
groundbreaking actions led the military services, and I applaud them.
By confirming Admiral Kelso's retirement, I do not want to send the
wrong message to the ranks. If provable cases against the actual
perpetrators were dismissed because of unfounded allegations against
Admiral Kelso, I believe that the judge erred, and that error is
regrettable. But we should not seek to remedy that error at the expense
of one man, who was not directly involved in the events.
Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the Navy's commitment to justice
need only look at Admiral Kelso's successor. In a very real sense, Adm.
Mike Boorda, the new CNO-designate, broke the Tailhook case. Serving as
deputy CNO for personnel, he brought Lt. Paula Coughlin's charges to
the Pentagon's attention, and even hired Lieutenant Coughlin for his
personal staff to shield her from possible retaliation elsewhere in the
Navy. That commitment to justice should be a clear warning to others
who would commit harassment or other offenses against their fellow
sailors.
In considering the worth of any individual, we must look fairly at
the good they have done and weigh it against any errors they may have
committed, and what they have done to atone for those mistakes. In this
case, I believe that the good Frank Kelso has done over 38 years of
meeting challenges, fixing problems, opening the Navy to women, and
changing the mission of our Navy should not be superseded by the errors
for which he has atoned. I will vote to retire Admiral Kelso in the
grade which he has earned.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I oppose this effort to allow Admiral
Kelso to retire from the Navy with a four-star rank. While this is not
by any means a simple issue, I do believe it would be a mistake to
accord Admiral Kelso the same privilege we have given to others of the
past.
Admiral Kelso has served our Nation for 38 years with great skill,
courage, and ability. He should be honored not only for that service,
but for what I believe were significant efforts to improve and
strengthen the role of women in the Navy.
The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service recently wrote
to Admiral Kelso praising his efforts on behalf of women. As they
noted:
Under your leadership, more women have been selected for
operational command, flag rank, and major shore command than
at any other time in the Navy's history. We share the view of
many military women that you are the one individual who has
done more to further opportunities for women than anyone
since Admiral Zumwalt in the early 1970s.
The advisory committee went on to cite specific steps Admiral Kelso
has taken on behalf of women. Those steps are real and important in
changing the Navy in ways that will not only lead to greater acceptance
of women in the service but will allow them to be fully integrated into
the life and work of the Navy.
While these efforts deserve genuine praise, I think we must face the
fact that Admiral Kelso also demonstrated a complete failure of
leadership in the so-called Tailhook investigation. This matter was
badly handled from start to finish. Admiral Kelso cannot avoid blame
for that failure and the Senate cannot simply look the other way and
pretend it did not happen.
The question before us is not whether we approve of sexual harassment
and will give a wink and a nod when it happens. The real issue is
whether we will hold accountable those we entrust with the leadership
of our Armed Forces. I believe we must hold Admiral Kelso responsible
for his direct failure of command.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I note that the Armed Services Committee
reported out the retirement nomination of Adm. Frank Kelso to retain
his four-star rank, by an overwhelming bipartisan, 20-2 vote last week.
I would simply say that I will listen to my colleagues on the Armed
Services Committee and will defer to their expertise and research done
on such matters.
All of us are concerned about the issues surrounding the so-called
``Tailhook Incident.'' Those that were responsible should be severely
reprimanded. I believe that the resignation of the former Secretary of
the Navy and others in the Navy chain-of- command was an appropriate
response. The criticism of Admiral Kelso has not withstood strict
scrutiny or proper rules of evidence, and I believe he should be
entitled to retire with four-star rank. Both Democrats and Republicans
on the Armed Services Committee have expressed that view
overwhelmingly.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have listened to today's debate
carefully, and have tried to assess appropriate summary documents of
the inspector general's conclusions which serve as the most
comprehensive documentary record on this controversial case.
In addition to the conclusions drawn by the Pentagon inspector
general, I reviewed the judicial ruling issued by military judge
William T. Vest, Jr., captain, JAGC of the U.S. Navy, and documents
submitted for the record by Chairman Nunn. I also took into account the
resignation of former Navy Secretary Garrett over Tailhook, and Navy
Secretary Dalton's judgment last year that Admiral Kelso should be
removed for failures of leadership surrounding this incident. I also
took into account the recommendations of Defense Secretary Perry,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Shalikashvili, and Navy Secretary Dalton
that he be allowed to retire at his current four-star rank.
The evidence was often conflicting and contradictory. In my judgment,
however, the essential findings of the military judge who heard the
evidence in a case involving naval officers facing charges stemming
from the 1991 Tailhook Association Convention were not sufficiently
rebutted by the inspector general's conclusions regarding Admiral
Kelso's conduct during the convention.
While people of good will can disagree about the standards of
evidence, procedural rules, and administrative and management standards
that should apply in such cases, I was ultimately unpersuaded that
Admiral Kelso met the management standard of due diligence at the
convention. Whether or not he actually witnessed the egregious and
rampant sexual misconduct by aviators that weekend--and the evidence on
that is conflicting--I believe that he must be held to a very high
standard of command responsibility for the behavior of those under his
command. This is especially true because he was in such close proximity
to those engaged in the misconduct who were his subordinates. Given the
evidence, it is difficult for me to believe he could have been
completely unaware of this misconduct during the convention.
Despite its efforts to address the problem of sexual harassment, the
Navy still has a long way to go. In the 3 years that I have served in
the Senate, my staff have intervened repeatedly with Pentagon officials
on behalf of many Navy servicewomen in Minnesota who have been victims
of sexual harassment by their male colleagues. This continues to be a
serious problem, and must be dealt with more aggressively by Navy
leadership.
But even against this backdrop, I believe that we should separate the
symbolic significance of this vote from the actual case in front of us
today, and the specific questions of misconduct, accountability, and
management due diligence that it raises. I have tried to keep this in
mind as I have thought through my views on this case.
Based on my review of the documentary evidence, I intend to oppose
Admiral Kelso's retirement with the rank of four-star admiral.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I must reluctantly vote to accept the
retirement of Adm. Frank Kelso at the two-star rank. While I have no
doubt that Admiral Kelso has contributed significantly to the defense
of the United States in an honorable manner throughout his career, our
decision at this point in time is whether or not he is to be
permanently designated with the supreme grade afforded to military
officers. He has, in fact, served very well throughout his tenure as
Chief of Naval Operations while wearing four stars.
As one who has lost a brother in war, I have nothing but the highest
admiration for those who go into harm's way to protect us all. Admiral
Kelso has devoted his adult life to the service of our country. He has
demonstrated his courage in combat and his leadership in all of his
duty assignments.
My decision tonight is whether his judgment, strength of leadership,
and tenacity in ensuring that his direction was carried out were
consistent with that expected of a four-star admiral. He had the
ultimate position of authority and responsibility in the U.S. Navy. His
performance as the Chief of Naval Operations must be evaluated in its
entirety.
During his challenging tour as CNO, he confronted and tackled
numerous issues for which there were few or no precedents. He was
successful in guiding the Navy through uncertain times with downsizing
and reorganization; he was decisive and effective in many operational
situations that reflected his broad experience and superior knowledge.
During his tour, he also was provided an extraordinarily complicated
and sensitive problem. I am not satisfied, however, with his faltering
forthrightness in accounting for his presence at Tailhook and his lack
of effectiveness in ensuring that a comprehensive and credible
investigation was immediately conducted. It must be expected of the
Chief of Naval Operations, the ultimate position in the U.S. Navy, that
the response to discovering a scenario as despicable and clearly
illegal as what took place at the Tailhook convention in Las Vegas,
would have been swift, strong, clear, and effective. The apparent
uncertainty that was pervasive throughout the Naval service regarding
the consequences of the conduct in question, whether or not the
participants would be able to get away with it, and what sort of effect
there would be on business as usual in the Navy lingered on and on.
Forceful and effective leadership was not forthcoming from the office
of the CNO.
The investigations that ensued from this incident were at best
inconclusive. Admiral Kelso, as CNO, bears direct responsibility for
the inept handling of the inquiries into the Tailhook incident. I
further maintain that the four-star command position with which Admiral
Kelso was entrusted provided him with sufficient authority and
resources to accurately determine culpability and with provisions to
take appropriate action. Unfortunately, Admiral Kelso has permitted the
Navy to live under a black cloud of uncertainty. While I believe
Admiral Kelso has directed the Navy on a course that will permit these
issues to be more effectively dealt with in the future, I am sorry that
it took the office of CNO so long to get there.
After much consideration, I have concluded that the leadership of
Admiral Kelso, while wearing four stars, was not in every regard
demonstrative of the extraordinary trust and confidence which must be
placed in military officers of that grade.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the
retirement of Adm. Frank Kelso at his current rank of full admiral.
I will take a back seat to no one in this chamber in my support for
equal treatment of women in the Armed Forces or anywhere else. And I
will not deny for a minute that the Navy, perhaps worst among the armed
services, is ill-equipped to deal with sexual harassment to the point
of being tolerant of it.
Just today I wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Dalton concerning a
case of a young woman from Minnesota who is a victim of the Navy's
inability to handle sexual harassment complaints. It is an intolerable
situation. And if any good is to come out of this debate today I hope
it will be that the Navy will finally understand that they will lose
the confidence of this Congress and this country if they do not shape
up.
But even that strongly held view does not justify what has been
proposed here today. It is quite simply wrong to reach a judgment and
carry out a sentence in a case with disputed facts on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.
As far as I can tell, one Navy judge found that the greater weight of
the evidence was that Admiral Kelso was present during and probably
witnessed inappropriate activities at the Tailhook convention. Admiral
Kelso has denied these allegations under oath.
The question of his guilt is hardly an open and shut case. Admiral
Kelso's position is supported by the deputy defense inspector general
who interviewed over 1,000 people who were at the Tailhook convention,
by the independent investigation of Adm. J. Paul Reason and by the
conclusions of both Navy Secretary Dalton and Defense Secretary Perry.
The same Navy judge also criticized Admiral Kelso for interfering
with the investigation of Tailhook by appointing Admiral Reason to
conduct the independent investigation, in spite of Admiral Kelso's
personal interest in the outcome.
But this is also not an open and shut case. The Navy Secretary at the
time, Sean O'Keefe, has said that he chose Admiral Reason on his own to
conduct the investigation.
As far as I can tell we are being asked to impose a punishment based
on the disputed findings of a judge in a proceeding where Admiral Kelso
was not a party--where he had no right to cross-examine his accusers,
where he had no right to counsel and where he had no right to be heard
in his own defense. In short, where he had none of the basic rights
that we afford any accused person in this country. I simply refuse to
go along with this denial of due process.
My colleagues on the other side of this question certainly raise a
valid point when they say that the responsibility for Tailhook
ultimately must rest at the top. But I cannot believe that admonition
contemplates a trial, verdict, and sentence affecting his pension on
the floor of the U.S. Senate where Admiral Kelso also has no right to
speak, no right to face his accusers and no right to due process. The
Uniform Code of Military Justice or the decisions of the civilian
leadership of the Navy are the appropriate means for exacting that
responsibility.
I share the suspicion of many of my colleagues that those appropriate
proceedings did not occur because of a failure of leadership in the
Navy and in the armed services as a whole. But that suspicion of mine
does not translate into a vote to condemn and sentence Admiral Kelso
without benefit of due process of law. That is not our proper rule and
does not address the problem.
That those appropriate proceedings did not happen lays squarely at
the door of the Navy inspector general, the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of Defense and, ultimately, the Commander in Chief. If
Admiral Kelso is so clearly guilty of misconduct, then our inquiry
ought to be with the civilian leaders who let him off the hook. They
are the ones with the clear responsibility to hold Admiral Kelso
accountable, not the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, we do not cure the crisis of leadership in the
military by acting against one officer's pension. If we want to address
the crisis of leadership in the military on sexual harassment, we need
to do it directly.
In the final analysis, I believe the Navy has a tremendous problem
with sexual harassment. I think that the civilian and military
authorities in the Pentagon had better give this a long hard look. I
think this Congress should give this a long hard look. But I cannot
make this vote today on Admiral Kelso's pension a symbolic vote on
Tailhook. That is not fair to him, it does nothing to address the lack
of leadership in the military, and it moves us nowhere nearer the
solution to sexual harassment that we all seek.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services
Committee, I voted to confirm Admiral Kelso for retirement in grade,
and I will vote again today for his retirement in grade.
Admiral Kelso's retirement is entangled with the Tailhook affair
because he attended the convention in 1991. In addition, a Navy court
martial judge considering three cases arising out of Tailhook made
findings that Admiral Kelso actually witnessed inappropriate activities
there and that he manipulated the Navy's subsequent investigation.
However, the Department of Defense inspector general did an indepth
investigation, interviewing over 2,000 people, and disagreed with the
judge's findings in a number of crucial ways. He also found no evidence
of wrongdoing by Admiral Kelso. In fact, the DOD inspector general said
that Admiral Kelso was helpful during their investigation.
In light of this conflicting information, I was not willing to cast
my vote on Admiral Kelso's retirement without an indepth understanding
of the entire record of his involvement in the Tailhook affair. I have
considered the court martial judge's 60-page opinion, both volumes of
the DOD inspector general's report, a variety of letters and affidavits
submitted by individuals with knowledge of Admiral Kelso's Tailhook-
related activities, excerpts from the court martial trial transcript,
and the testimony of Secretary Perry, Secretary Dalton, and General
Shalikashvili before the Armed Services Committee. In addition, when I
identified a gap in the factual record, I forwarded a question to
Admiral Kelso and received a written response from him.
My conclusion, after consulting these sources, is that Admiral Kelso
did not observe inappropriate conduct during his attendance at Tailhook
and that he did not interfere with the subsequent investigation. I
believe that the judge's conclusions to the contrary are mistaken and
are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
In particular, with respect to the aftermath of Tailhook, the initial
investigation was conducted by the naval inspector general and the
Naval Investigative Service under the supervision of the Under
Secretary of the Navy, who reported to the Secretary. The DOD inspector
general found that neither Admiral Kelso nor his staff were invited to
participate in the weekly meetings that were held to discuss the
progress of the investigation, although Kelso did receive periodic
briefings. He also had to be careful not to become too involved in the
Navy's investigation in order to avoid the appearance of undue command
influence. When a serious omission in the Navy's investigative report
later came to light, Admiral Kelso insisted that the matter be referred
to the DOD inspector general for a full and impartial review. The DOD
inspector general describes Admiral Kelso's reaction to the omission as
``outraged.'' According to former Under Secretary of the Navy Daniel
Howard, upon the discovery of the omission, Admiral Kelso had
threatened to resign unless further steps were taken. I request that
the full text of the letter from Mr. Howard to Under Secretary of the
Navy Danzig be attached to my statement.
Having come to the conclusion that Admiral Kelso did not witness
misconduct or interfere with the Navy's Tailhook investigation, and in
light of his otherwise distinguished career, I support his retirement
in grade.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
J. Daniel Howard,
Tokyo, Japan, February 10, 1994.
Hon. Richard Danzig,
Under Secretary of the Navy, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am deeply concerned about the press
reports regarding the judge's ruling in the Tailhook court
martials. By the time you receive this all the decisions will
probably already have been made. Nevertheless, I feel the
need to add my voice to the process.
If there is a blameless individual among the leaders of the
department with respect to Tailhook, it is Frank Kelso. To my
knowledge he never sought to constrain the investigation in
any way. On the contrary, he took one particular action which
indicated his determination that the investigation shield
nobody. By this action he most probably precipitated the
resignation of Secretary Garrett. Shortly after the close of
the DON investigation and public release of the reports of
the DON IG and NTS. I was contacted by the then Vice Chief,
ADM Jerry Johnson. He said that the CNO had heard that a
statement implicating Mr. Garrett had been left out of the
NIS report and the CNO wanted to know how that could have
happened. I was completely surprised because RADM Williams,
the head of NIS, had not mentioned it. I, too, wanted to know
how this could have happened. A few days later Mr. Garrett
called me to his office and said that the CNO had apparently
concluded that RADM Williams had purposely suppressed this
statement. The CNO had demanded that RADM Williams be
relieved from duty pending an investigation. Mr. Garrett said
that he refused that demand because he had been assured by
RADM Williams that he too had been unaware of the existence
of the written statement but said that because the CNO was
not satisfied and had threatened to resign unless further
steps were taken, Mr. Garrett had just asked the DOD IG
(acting) Derek Vanderschaeff to investigate the manner in
which the NIS investigation had been conducted.
All of the above is by way of saying that Frank Kelso did
not shrink from his responsibility to investigate involvement
in Tailhook by anyone, high or low. Furthermore, it was Frank
who supported me when I decided to take on the entire
cultural problem, and the aviation community, in the wake of
Mr. Garrett's resignation. It was Frank who visited command
after command to read the riot act. It was Frank Kelso who
acknowledged to me that every leader who wore the Navy
uniform bore some responsibility for allowing Tailhook to
happen.
Why then did he attend Tailhook 93? He did so at the
request of Mr. Garrett who said that the two of them must go
to Las Vegas to attempt to put down a near mutiny in the
ranks of naval aviators. We had killed the F14D and the
remanufacturing program for older F-14s. We had decided to
go with the F-18 E/F instead. The F-14 community was up in
arms and the evidence of open warfare was daily in the
press. Frank was the third submariner in a row to be CNO.
Submariners are isolated from the rest of the Navy and
Frank knew that he had no particular credibility with the
naval aviation community. That is why he had an aviator as
VCNO. He knew that Jerry Johnson was the proper person to
accompany Mr. Garrett, but he reluctantly agreed to go.
Frank later told me that he did not approve of the raucous
atmosphere of the Q&A session in the seminar in which he
spoke and commented that one would not see anything like
that in the submarine community. Even though he was Chief
of Naval Operations for the whole Navy, he clearly felt
out of place among this ritual gathering of naval
aviators. Mr. Garrett believed that he and the CNO had
sold the aviation plan. Indeed, until the sexual
harassment charged emerged about two months later,
everyone familiar with the convention felt that it was the
most successful event in the association's 35 year history
with standing room only at most of the thirteen hours of
seminar sessions held.
There was a failure of leadership in Tailhook. I believe
that most of that failure was in the aviation chain of
command. I conclude that this failure of leadership was
because of the belief among some, but certainly not all,
senior aviators that naval aviation was so demanding that the
institution should tolerate occasional anti-social behavior
outside the cockpit.
Both the CNO and I spoke with senior naval aviators to
solicit their support to assist the investigation and to
address the cultural problem. The responses varied but most
of them were negative. I can recall, however, two exceptions.
Then RADM Tony Less sent a letter to every aviator in his
command (LANTAIR). He followed it up with visits to bases.
VADM Barney Kelly, CINCPACFLI, sent a message and then
embarked upon a very aggressive schedule of visits to all his
commands where he held public sessions to discuss the matter.
Their efforts came late in the investigation. I do not know
whether or not they did any good but I was very pleased that
they took action. However, the overall reaction was
disappointing. As ADM (retired) Bud Edney said (I think that
it was on CNN) ``we let the CNO down, we let Secretary
Garrett down and we let the Navy down.'' Bud is a former
fighter pilot, VCNO and CINCLANT. He is one of the naval
aviators who never went to Tailhook (Stan Arthur is another)
but knew that there was a long-standing problem with aberrant
behavior there. He says that all the leadership in naval
aviation failed to measure up. I agree that the primary
responsibility was there. It does not excuse me or Larry
Garrett or Frank Kelso or any of the many other leaders who
failed to address the cultural problem over the years. All of
us must bear our share. But Frank Kelso does not deserve more
than his share and he did attempt to address the problem
after the event.
During the brief time I was acting secretary Frank
supported me strongly in the establishment of the Standing
Committee on Women in the Navy and Marine Corps, on the
proposal to make sexual harassment a specific offense under
the UCMU, on the plan to do a one-day training standdown for
the Navy and Marine Corps (all made public) and on my efforts
to convince the Secretary of Defense that we should
immediately open combat aviation and more surface vessels to
women (not made public awaiting the findings of the
Presidential Commission). Those later ideas were his and they
later resurfaced and were approved.
Frank Kelso is a fine man and a solid leader. He has had an
enormous challenge over the past four years. He did an
outstanding job during the Gulf War of martialing the naval
resources for the conflict and of maintaining peace between
the Navy and Air Force (probably the tougher part of the
job). I think that the future Navy owes him a great debt for
his reorganization of the naval staff. Many of his
predecessors thought about it. Only he had the guts to do it.
Finally, he supported the huge effort to downsize the
infrastructure to match the operating forces and to match the
latter to the budget. All of this was hard, and made even
harder because much of it was accomplished under the cloud of
Tailhook.
I have no idea what Secretary Dalton and SECDEF will choose
to do with the judge's opinion. I clearly believe that it was
a totally erroneous finding. I sincerely believe that ADM
Frank Kelso has done his job right and that he deserves to
serve out his term with dignity.
Sincerely yours,
Dan Howard,
Under Sec., Navy.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the confirmation of the
nomination of Adm. Frank B. Kelso, II, U.S. Navy, to be placed on the
retired list in the grade of admiral.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is
absent due to illness.
I also announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is absent
because of death in family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Ex.]
YEAS--54
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
Danforth
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
Mitchell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Sasser
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Gorton
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Packwood
Pressler
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--3
Glenn
Riegle
Shelby
So the nomination was confirmed.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the nomination was confirmed.
Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________