[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     ADM. STANLEY ARTHUR, U.S. NAVY

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the loss of a 
great leader. On Friday of last week, it was announced by the Navy that 
Adm. Stanley Arthur was withdrawing his name from nomination to the 
position of commander in chief Pacific, commonly referred to as 
CINCPAC.
  Mr. President, I was distressed to learn of the admiral's decision 
because, in my dealings with him over the years, I have found him to be 
a man of great wisdom, fairness and integrity.
  Admiral Arthur received his commission from Naval ROTC at Miami of 
Ohio University in 1957, after earning his bachelor of science degree 
in aeronautics. During his career he served aboard the U.S.S. 
Bennington, and commanded the U.S.S. San Jose and the carrier the Coral 
Sea. During the Vietnam war he flew more than 500 combat missions as an 
A-4 pilot, earning the Legion of Merit with combat ``V'', 11 
Distinguished Flying Crosses, 4 Air Medals for Individuals Action, 47 
Strike/Flight Air Medals and a Navy Commendation Medal with combat 
``V''. During the Persian Gulf war, he commanded the U.S. 7th Fleet, 
directing the combat operations of more than 96,000 Marine and Navy 
personnel.
  Admiral Arthur rose through the ranks pinning on his fourth star in 
1992 and beginning his tenure as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. It 
is here that the admiral made the tough decisions for which he is being 
criticized.
  The admiral, because of his vast aviation experience, was asked to 
personally review the case of an individual who accused a superior of 
sexual harassment and who now argues that her complaint caused her to 
be flunked out of flight school. The admiral examined all the facts in 
the case, was fully supportive of the individual's harassment 
complaint, but concluded that she failed in flight school because of 
her skills, not because of her charges. Because of his involvement, 
some in the press and in public life decided to make a political issue 
of this case.
  Reading the headlines, one gets the impression that Admiral Arthur 
was guilty of sexual harassment. That is not the case. Nor was the 
admiral responsible for the initial discipline that ultimately saw the 
resignation of the individual charged with sexual harassment. What 
Admiral Arthur did, and what he takes responsibility for, is that, upon 
reviewing all the facts, he determined that the woman who failed flight 
school did so because of her failure to meet well founded requirements 
for qualification--based on her training record. The Navy and the DOD 
Inspectors General reviewed the case and, independently, came to the 
same conclusion. Both agreed with Admiral Arthur's judgment. However, 
the facts of the incident do not seem to matter.
  Have we come to this--where the facts no longer matter, where 
appearances and imagery rule, where symbolism and symbolic value drive 
out realism and truth? Mr. President, we all decry sexual harassment. 
We were all appalled by the Navy's Tailhook scandal. But, we have to 
stop this cycle of character assassination by insinuation. Enough is 
enough.
  Admiral Arthur has served this country loyally and in good standing 
for 37 years. He was nominated by the President to serve as commander 
in chief of all Pacific forces because he demonstrated leadership, 
dedication to duty, fairness and good judgment. He has withdrawn his 
name because he saw himself as an impediment to progress. Admiral 
Arthur realized that the Navy which he has served tirelessly was 
continuing to be tainted as the service of sexual discrimination and 
harassment because of his nomination. This is not fair, this is not 
right.
  I believe it is the country's loss that Admiral Arthur will not be 
serving as CINCPAC. Based on his long career, I have every confidence 
that he would have served impeccably in that role.

                          ____________________