[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2630-S2641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NOMINATION OF COMDR. ROBERT STUMPF
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue
concerning the procedures used by the Senate Armed Services Committee
in evaluating nominations and, in particular, the nomination of Cmdr.
Robert E. Stumpf.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has received considerable public
criticism since the Secretary of the Navy removed Commander Stumpf from
the promotion list.
The committee, and some of its members, have been the subject of
numerous articles in the media relating to both substantive and
procedural issues concerning this matter. Much of the material that has
appeared in the media reports has been inaccurate and incomplete. Some
of the material has been written by Commander Stumpf's lawyer. Others
quote either Commander Stumpf, his attorney, or both.
To this point, members of the Armed Services Committee have not
responded publicly on the substance of the information provided to the
committee by the Navy, nor on the deliberations conducted within the
executive session. This is in accordance with established committee
rules and procedures, including procedures designed to protect the
privacy and reputation of nominees, with appropriate regard for the
rights of Commander Stumpf.
Last Thursday, Senator Thurmond, as the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, on behalf of the committee, placed a statement in
the Record which began by reciting the chronology of events concerning
the nomination of Commander Stumpf. I do not think there is any doubt
or debate about the sequence of events. But I want to review those
events for the Record.
On March 11, 1994, the President submitted various nominations for
promotion in the Navy to the grade of captain (O-6), including a list
containing the nomination of Commander Stumpf. On the same date, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense, in the letter required by the committee
on all Navy and Marine Corps nominees, advised the committee that none
of the officers had been identified as potentially implicated on
matters related to Tailhook. After careful review, the list was
reported favorably to the Senate on May 19, 1994, and all nominations
on the list were confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1994.
Subsequent to the Senate's confirmation of this promotion list, but
prior to the appointment by the President of Commander Stumpf to the
grade of captain, the committee was advised by the Department of
Defense that the March 11, 1994, letter had been in error because the
Navy had failed to inform the Office of the Secretary of Defense that
Commander Stumpf had been identified as potentially implicated in
Tailhook.
As a result, on June 30, 1994, the Armed Services Committee requested
that the Navy withhold action on the promotion of Commander Stumpf
until the committee had an opportunity to review the information that
had not been made available to the Senate during its confirmation
proceedings. It was entirely appropriate that the committee request the
withholding of Commander Stumpf's promotion once it had been notified
of the Navy's failure to report the potential implication of Commander
Stumpf in Tailhook-related activities.
It is also worth noting that the Armed Services Committee has no
capacity to investigate nominations on its own. The committee must rely
solely on the information provided by the Department of Defense, which,
in this case, was incomplete.
On April 4, 1995, the Navy provided the committee with the report of
investigation and related information concerning Commander Stumpf. And
I would note this is not all the information related to Commander
Stumpf for his case. The committee is still receiving documents
relating to that particular case. And subsequently, the Navy provided
additional information in response to requests from the committee. And
those requests are ongoing.
On October 25, 1995, the committee met in closed session, consistent
with its longstanding practice, to consider a number of nominations and
to further consider the matter involving Commander Stumpf. After due
consideration, the committee directed the chairman and ranking member
to advise the Secretary of the Navy that, and I quote:
Had the information regarding Commander Stumpf's activities
surrounding Tailhook '91 been available to the committee, as
required, at the time of the nomination, the committee would
not have recommended that the Senate confirm his nomination
to the grade of captain.
The committee also directed that the letter advise the Secretary
that, and again I quote from the letter:
The committee recognizes that, in light of the Senate
having earlier given its advice and consent to Commander
Stumpf's nomination, the decision to promote him rests solely
with the executive branch.
A draft letter was prepared, reviewed by the Senate legal counsel,
made available for review by all members of the committee, and was
transmitted to the Secretary on November 13, 1995. On December 22,
1995, the Secretary of the Navy removed Commander Stumpf's name from
the promotion list.
The committee met next on March 12, 1996, to review the committee's
procedures for considering Navy and Marine Corps nominations in the
aftermath of Tailhook. At that meeting, the committee again reviewed
the proceedings concerning Commander Stumpf.
I do not think many people outside the committee fully understand the
committee's procedures in handling controversial nominations. Just to
make it clear, when the committee is notified by the Department of
Defense that there is potentially adverse information concerning a
nominee, that nomination moves to a separate, more deliberate track
than those nominations about which there is no adverse information. The
committee staff is required to research the information provided by the
Department of Defense and to brief the members in an executive or
closed session. Attendance at these executive sessions is limited to
Members of the Senate and committee counsel. These restrictions are
designed to minimize the number of people who may learn of information
which may be very personal, sometimes inflammatory, and may involve
allegations which have been found to not be substantiated.
Following a procedure developed late in the 103d Congress, the
chairman and ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee are charged
with reviewing those cases prior to an executive session. In the case
of Commander Stumpf, the committee followed those procedures precisely.
The committee met in executive session on October 25, 1995, to
discuss a series of nominations, as I indicated. Seven Tailhook-related
nominations were considered that day. For the record, those members
present voted to favorably recommend two of the seven and to return
five of the nominations to the executive branch at the end of the first
session. The one remaining Tailhook-related individual discussed during
that meeting was Commander Stumpf.
On December 22, 1995, as I earlier indicated, Secretary Dalton
removed Commander Stumpf from the promotion list. Following that action
by the Secretary of the Navy, a number of public articles, some written
by Commander Stumpf's defense team, questioned the committee's
integrity, its processes and its judgment. These allegations have been
characterized by misinformation, distortions of the record, and
misstatement of the facts.
Numerous articles and sources have questioned the committee's
procedures related to Tailhook nominations, alleging that the prospect
of confirmation of service members nominated for promotion but involved
in Tailhook are ``slim.''
[[Page S2631]]
The records of the committee show that the committee has received 23
nominations of service members potentially implicated in Tailhook. Only
eight of those have been rejected by the committee. To put this in
perspective, the committee has confirmed 43,270 Navy and Marine Corps
officers since 1992.
A published article says that ``one member of the committee now
maintains that there were reasons other than Tailgate for rejecting
Commander Stumpf.'' There have been other allegations that the
committee had information other than that provided by the Navy. An
article in the March 1996 edition of the Armed Forces Journal says that
Commander Stumpf and Mr. Gittins, Commander Stumpf's attorney, believe
there were anonymous phone calls to the committee. These allegations
imply that the committee based its conclusions concerning Commander
Stumpf on information which was unknown to Commander Stumpf and the
Navy.
While it is true that on occasion the committee does receive
information from outside sources, since the committee does not have the
capacity to independently investigate, committee procedures are to
refer such information to the Department of Defense. In Commander
Stumpf's case, there was no outside information provided to the
committee. The committee did not consider any material other than that
provided by the Navy when it determined that, as the November 13, 1995
letter to Secretary Dalton states, ``Had the information regarding
Commander Stumpf's activities surrounding Tailhook `91 been available
to the committee as required at the time of the nomination, the
committee would not have recommended that the Senate confirm his
nomination to the grade of captain.''
Mr. President, unfortunately, misrepresentations and misstatement of
the facts related to the committee deliberations on this matter have
put the Armed Services Committee at a severe disadvantage. Our policy
has been to protect the confidentiality of the nominee, and we are
limited in our ability to respond.
Certainly in this case, the nominee, Commander Stumpf, does not share
our concern. In fact, a Wall Street Journal article dated March 12,
1996, stated that Commander Stumpf and his attorneys have indicated
that the committee should feel free to tell the entire world whatever
it is that Senators think they know about him. It is noteworthy, Mr.
President, that Commander Stumpf, in a letter to the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee dated March 13, 1996, requested that he be
permitted to testify before the committee but in a closed hearing, not
open to the public or the media.
Mr. President, I believe it is important that our Senate colleagues
be advised that the committee, in reviewing nominations for promotion,
carefully examines each individual case and, among other criteria,
believes the standard set forth in title X of the United States Code
pertaining to the responsibilities of a commander entitled
``Requirement for exemplary conduct'' are applicable, and I quote from
title X:
All commanding officers and others in authority in the
naval service are required to show in themselves a good
example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to
be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are
placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all
dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to
the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are
guilty of them; and to take all necessary and proper
measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the
naval service to promote and safeguard the morale, the
physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers
and enlisted persons under their command or charge.
This standard, Mr. President, is repeated verbatim in article 1131 of
the U.S. Navy Regulations issued in 1990. There are similar provisions
in title X which pertain to the other services, as well as other
provisions relating to members of the armed services.
The committee does not take lightly these statutory and regulatory
standards. Nor do they take lightly their constitutional
responsibilities to provide their advice and consent on military
nominations.
A number of articles that have been written have referred to Senator
Nunn's involvement in the committee's deliberations and decisions.
While Senator Nunn has exercised his due diligence in this case, as he
does with every other matter before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I would like to state for the record that as chairman of the
subcommittee on personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
take responsibility for the procedures used by the subcommittee staff
to review military nominations and I fully stand by those procedures
used by the staff in carefully reviewing the nominations presented to
the committee by the executive branch, including the procedures used to
evaluate the nomination of Commander Stumpf.
I have reviewed that material in depth. I have personally and
carefully evaluated the file on Commander Stumpf. I have discussed the
matter at length with the staff and I have concluded that, based
exclusively--exclusively on the facts presented to the committee by the
Department of Defense with with due regard for the statutory and
regulatory standards governing the conduct of military commanders and
officers, as well as long-established military precedents, that I could
not recommend approval of Commander Stumpf's nomination to the
committee.
Each member of the committee is, of course, free to accept or reject
any recommendation, and I certainly respect those who have come to a
different conclusion in this matter. Each member is free to separately
evaluate all of the material available to the committee on this
nomination or any nomination. Each member is, of course, free to debate
the case for or against either Commander Stumpf's nomination or any
other nomination. In the final analysis, of course, each member is free
to vote yea or nay on any particular case.
I am disappointed that so many in the media followed the well-
intentioned but misinformed lead of those who do not know the facts of
the case and the committee's deliberations. The Armed Services
Committee is an important part of the institution of the Senate.
Everyone in this body is hurt when the Senate Armed Services Committee
is vilified and members cannot respond because of loyalty to rules and
procedures put in place to protect the confidentiality of the matters
before it and the nominees before its consideration.
Mr. President, I look forward to a time when respect for the privacy
of an individual and respect for such a great institution as the U.S.
Navy is not overridden by the desire of a journalist or an attorney or
any others to take advantage of a situation to forward their own
agenda.
The Secretary of the Navy has removed Commander Stumpf from the
promotion list. The committee no longer has any nomination before it
pertaining to Commander Stumpf. The committee has no legal authority to
take any further action concerning the promotion of Commander Stumpf at
this time.
As in every case in which a military nominee has been removed from a
promotion list, the only process by which Commander Stumpf can be
renominated for promotion is to be selected by another promotion board
and be nominated by the President again, or, alternately, directly
nominated by the President under his authority, granted by article 2 of
the Constitution.
As I have stated before, the decision of the committee after due
deliberation was that, had the information regarding Commander Stumpf's
activities surrounding Tailhook '91 been available to the committee as
required at the time of the nomination, the committee would not have
recommended that the Senate confirm his nomination to the grade of
captain. That was the committee's determination then. That is the
committee's determination now. Nothing that has transpired since has
altered the committee's decision.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the leaders of the
Subcommittee on Personnel of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Coats and Senator Byrd, in addressing the review of the military
nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook, including the nomination of
Commander Robert Stumpf, U.S. Navy. Senator Coats has
[[Page S2632]]
addressed this matter with extreme accuracy in an absolutely factual
presentation, for which I applaud him, in making that presentation.
The review of military nominations, particularly those involving
adverse information, is a responsibility taken very seriously by the
members of the Armed Services Committee, as the Chair well knows, being
a member of that committee. This is a responsibility that the
Constitution assigns to the Senate and the Senate has assigned to the
Committee on Armed Services, as its, in effect, agent, to make
recommendations to the full Senate. Within the committee, the
responsibility of making recommendation on military nominations rests
with the leadership of the Subcommittee on Personnel.
Senator Coats and Senator Byrd, as chairman and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Personnel, have fulfilled this responsibility with
skill, dignity, and absolute fairness. They have provided the committee
with serious, sober, and balanced recommendations on military
nominations.
When the committee considered the promotion of Commander Stumpf on
October 25, 1995, I listened, as other members did, with care to the
presentation made by Senator Coats on behalf of himself and Senator
Byrd. I found his assessment to be persuasive and I voted in favor of
the recommendation of Senator Coats and Senator Byrd, that Commander
Stumpf not be promoted.
The subject of Commander Stumpf's promotion has been the subject of
some attention in the Department of the Navy, among those who follow
Naval aviation, and in the news media. I am pleased to join Senator
Coats, Senator Byrd, and others, in placing this matter in the proper
perspective.
On March 13, 1996, the Armed Services Committee issued a statement
concerning the committee's consideration of the promotion of Commander
Stumpf, U.S. Navy.
I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
On March 11, 1994, the President submitted various
nominations for promotion in the Navy to the grade of Captain
(0-6), including a list containing the nomination of
Commander Stumpf. On the same date, the Assistant Secretary
of Defense, in the letter required by the committee on all
Navy and Marines Corps nominees, advised the committee that
none of the officers had been identified as potentially
implicated on matters related to Tailhook. The list was
reported favorably to the Senate on May 19, 1994, and all
nominations on the list were confirmed by the Senate on May
24, 1994.
Subsequent to the Senate's confirmation of the list, but
prior to the appointment by the President of Commander Stumpf
to the grade of Captain, the committee was advised by the
Department of Defense that the March 11, 1994 letter had been
in error because the Navy had failed to inform the Office of
the Secretary of Defense that Commander Stumpf had been
identified as potentially implicated in Tailhook. On June 30,
1994, the committee requested that the Navy withhold action
on the promotion until the committee had an opportunity to
review the information that had not been made available to
the Senate during the confirmation proceedings.
On April 4, 1995, the Navy provided the Committee with the
report of the investigation and related information
concerning Commander Stumpf, and subsequently provided
additional information in response to requests from the
committee. On October 25, 1995, the committee met in closed
session--consistent with longstanding practice--to consider a
number of nominations and to consider the matter involving
Commander Stumpf. The committee directed the Chairman and
Ranking Member to advise the Secretary of the Navy that ``had
the information regarding Commander Stumpf's activities
surrounding Tailhook '91 been available to the committee, as
required, at the time of the nomination, the committee would
not have recommended that the Senate confirm his nomination
to the grade of Captain.'' The committee also directed that
the letter advise the Secretary that: ``The committee
recognizes that, in light of the Senate having earlier given
its advice and consent to Commander Stumpf's nomination, the
decision to promote him rests solely with the Executive
Branch.'' A draft letter was prepared, made available for
review by all members of the committee, and was transmitted
to the Secretary on November 13, 1995. On December 22, 1995,
the Secretary of the Navy removed Commander Stumpf's name
from the promotion list.
The committee met on March 12, 1996, to review the
committee's procedures for considering Navy and Marine Corps
nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook. At that meeting,
the committee reviewed the proceedings concerning Commander
Stumpf.
The committee, in considering the promotion of Commander
Stumpf, acted in good faith and in accordance with
established rules and procedures, including procedures
designed to protect the privacy and reputation of nominees,
with appropriate regard for the rights of Commander Stumpf.
The Chief of Naval Operations has testified that he believes
such confidentiality should be maintained. The committee made
its November 13, 1995 recommendation based upon information
that was made available by the Navy.
At the present time, no nomination concerning Commander
Stumpf is pending before the committee, and the Secretary of
the Navy has removed his name from the promotion list. The
committee has been advised by the Navy's General Counsel that
this administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Navy
is final and that the Secretary cannot act unilaterally to
promote Commander Stumpf.
The committee notes that much of the material that has
appeared in the media about the substantive and procedural
issues concerning this matter, is inaccurate and incomplete.
As with any nominee whose name has been removed from a
promotion list, Commander Stumpf remains eligible for further
nomination by the President. If he is nominated again for
promotion to Captain, the committee will give the nomination
the same careful consideration it would give any nominee.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe that statement has already been
alluded to by my friend from Indiana. Commander Stumpf had a
distinguished military record, including decorated combat service. That
record was considered strongly by the committee in the review of his
promotion.
The Navy also provided the committee with information, subsequent to
his confirmation by the Senate, which raised issues about Commander
Stumpf's qualifications for promotion to a higher grade.
As with almost any nomination involving such information, factual
information, reasonable people can disagree on whether the information
considered by the committee disqualified Commander Stumpf for
promotion. I respect my colleagues, and others, who come to a different
conclusion than I.
The significance of the committee's statement that has just been
printed in the Record is that both those who support Commander Stumpf's
promotion and those who do not support his promotion have agreed that
the Armed Services Committee, quoting the committee, ``* * * acted in
good faith and in accordance with established rules and procedures,
including procedures designed to protect the privacy and reputation of
nominees, with appropriate regard for the rights of Commander Stumpf.''
That was a unanimous statement of the Armed Services Committee.
In addition, all the members of the committee agreed, ``Much of the
material that appeared in the media about the substance and procedural
issues surrounding this matter is inaccurate and incomplete.'' That,
too, was a unanimous opinion of the Armed Services Committee, including
both those who favored the Stumpf nomination and those who did not.
The inaccurate stories, unfortunately, continue. The March 15
Washington Times asserts, for example, that there was, ``* * *. an
effort to rescind the committee's November 1995 letter,'' recommending
that Commander Stumpf not be promoted. That statement in the Washington
Times is misleading. I was there for the whole meeting. No such motion
was made or voted on. No such motion was ever made or voted on in the
committee.
procedures of the senate armed services committee for the consideration
of nominations
Mr. President, before addressing issues that have been raised about
the Committee's consideration of CDR Stumpf, I would like to summarize
the Committee's procedures for handling Navy and Marine Corps
nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook.
The Department of Defense provides the committee with a letter on all
flag and general officer nominees in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps advising the Committee of any potentially adverse
information since the individual's last confirmation.
In 1992, when the committee learned of the serious flaws in the
Navy's Tailhook investigations, we established a similar requirement
for Navy and Marine Corps nominees of all grades--a procedure that was
supported by all members of the committee. The
[[Page S2633]]
then-chairman and ranking minority member of the Manpower Subcommittee,
Senator Glenn and Senator McCain, were instrumental in establishing
that process. Had we not done so, it is doubtful we could have moved
any Navy/Marine Corps nominations through the Senate in view of the
serious concern in the Senate about the inability of the Navy to
investigate itself and identify those who were involved in misconduct
or leadership deficiencies.
In August 1993, the Department of Defense proposed that the Tailhook
procedure be modified in view of the completion of the additional
investigations, and the Committee concurred. Under the modified
procedure, DOD notifies the Committee as to whether any nominee was
identified as potentially implicated by the Department of Defense
Inspector General or by the Department of the Navy. With respect to any
individual so identified, DOD advises us of the status of any
administrative or disciplinary action. In April 1995, Senator Thurmond,
as Chairman, specifically rejected a request from the Department of the
Navy to change these procedures, noting that decision would have to be
made by the Committee.
It is the longstanding policy of the committee--under both Republican
and Democratic chairmen--that when we consider adverse information
about a nominee--whether related to Tailhook or any other matter--we do
so in closed session. Senate Rule 26.5(b)(3) authorizes a closed
hearing when the matters to be discussed ``will tend to charge an
individual with crime or misconduct, to disgrace or injure the
professional standing of an individual, or otherwise to expose an
individual to public contempt or obloquy, or will represent a clearly
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual.''
The committee's practice of conducting nomination proceedings
involving adverse information in closed session is based upon concern
for the interests of the military officers whose nominations are
pending before the committee. In the overwhelming majority of cases,
the adverse information provided to the committee involves minor
infractions which have been addressed internally by DOD and which the
committee determines to be not disqualifying.
In view of the fact that adverse information about an officer
considered by the committee is determined to be not disqualifying in
most cases, few if any officers would want this information to be
considered in a public session. In the relatively few cases where the
Committee does not take favorable action, neither the Service nor the
officer normally seeks to publicize the adverse information. When the
committee publicly discusses the basis for rejecting a nomination, it
normally is in the context of a report on systemic problems.
consideration of the promotion of cdr stumpf
The committee's traditional procedures for reviewing nominations in
closed session, as well as the procedures for considering Navy and
Marine Corps nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook, were in place
when the committee considered the promotion of Commander Stumpf. As I
noted earlier, the members of the committee who supported his promotion
as well as those who opposed the promotion have agreed the committee
followed the appropriate procedures in addressing this matter, and the
letter so indicates. That opinion, apparently, is not shared by
Commander Stumpf's attorney, Mr. Charles Gittins.
Although the committee took no steps to publicize its October 25,
1995 decision to recommend that Commander Stumpf not be promoted, nor
did the committee release any of the information that led the committee
to recommend against his promotion, Commander Stumpf's attorney has
made repeated public comments about the committee's consideration of
Commander Stumpf's promotion.
In the December 19, 1995, Washington Times, Commander Stumpf's
attorney, Mr. Gittins, was quoted as accusing the committee of
operating on the basis of ``rumor and innuendo.''
A CBS Evening News interview on January 8, 1996, quoted Commander
Stumpf's attorney as stating his client was removed from the promotion
list as a result of ``blackmail.''
In the January 31, 1996, Washington Times, Commander Stumpf's
attorney was quoted as stating that the decision was a result of
``political pressure and threats to Navy programs.''
In a February 2 op-ed piece in the Washington Times entitled ``Get
the Senate Out of the Navy,'' Commander Stumpf's attorney asserted that
his client was not promoted as a result of ``political pressure'' and
that the Armed Services Committee was acting ``for political
advantage.''
He concluded: ``Senator McCarthy may be gone, but McCarthyism lives
on in the Senate.''
These statements have spawned a host of editorials, columns and
letters which have painted a picture of this matter which, as noted in
the statement issued by the committee on March 13--with unanimous
committee approval--``is inaccurate and incomplete.''
For the last 3 months, Commander Stumpf's counsel and advocates have
argued his case in the public arena, citing only those portions of the
material favorable to his cause. Material that would have given a
complete picture of the basis for the committee's recommendation has
not been released, was not released by Commander Stumpf, was not
released by his attorney, and has not been released by the committee,
because the committee has been restrained by a self-imposed gag order.
Why have we not responded? Because we play by the rules, and we do not
release materials from our nomination files without a vote by the
committee.
It is interesting to note that those of us who have been under
attack--and I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from
Indiana--those who have been under attack have not leaked anything in
self-defense or in any other way. Nothing has been leaked on the
committee's side of the issue. So it is an interesting kind of
committee restraint here.
Indeed, the committee has shown remarkable restraint. As Members of
the Senate know, I believe we should conduct most--not all--most
nomination proceedings involving adverse information in a closed
session. I discussed this matter at length in a speech I delivered on
this floor on October 16, 1991, in the aftermath of the proceedings on
the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas, which was in the Judiciary
Committee, not our committee.
I also believe, however, that when a nominee chooses to place his or
her version of the facts in the public arena and challenges the motives
and the good faith of the committee--indeed, statements like
McCarthyism, and so forth--the committee must find an appropriate way
to respond.
Although the committee provided a general response on March 13, the
committee decided at that time to not release specific information
about Commander Stumpf. There is no nomination now pending before the
committee. The committee deferred to the views of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Boorda, who testified in a public hearing on March
12 when I asked him a question, that they did not favor public
dissemination of nomination information in this case. That is the view
of the Chief of Naval Operations.
While I do not concur in that view because of the unique
circumstances of this matter being handled, in effect, in a public
relations matter in the public arena, since it results in a one-sided
public presentation of information, I understand and respect those who
believe we should not release any information when this matter is no
longer pending before the committee. I deferred to that view in
committee, because it was, obviously, the view of the majority.
The committee has agreed, however, that it is appropriate for
Senators to identify the areas in which the statements in the media are
inaccurate and incomplete.
Consideration of Commander Stumpf's Nomination in Closed Session
Commander Stumpf's attorney, in the December 19, 1995, Washington
Times, is quoted as criticizing action of the Armed Services Committee
because the committee has ``operated behind closed doors'' when
considering his client's case.
As I noted earlier, the committee considers adverse information in
closed session. We do that all the time. That
[[Page S2634]]
is our normal operating procedure, and that is done in order to protect
the reputation of nominees, a process that is strongly supported by the
U.S. military. As far as I know, all branches of the military support
that procedure, as well as the civilian leadership of the Department of
Defense.
Prior to the committee's October 25, 1995, decision to recommend
Commander Stumpf not be promoted, the committee received no letter from
his attorney requesting that we proceed on this nomination in open
session. We received no such letter, no such information, no such
request, according to all the information I have received, checking
with both majority staff and minority staff.
Commander Stumpf's attorney apparently made a tactical decision not
to request an appearance or an open session. Having made that decision,
how can he now fault the committee for reviewing the promotion in
closed session in accordance with longstanding committee procedure,
which we do on all nominations that have adverse information of a
personal nature.
It is not clear Commander Stumpf's attorney wants this matter to be
considered in public. The March 12 Wall Street Journal reported,
``Commander Stumpf and his attorney say that the committee should feel
free to tell the whole world whatever it is the Senators think they
know about him.''
That was a story for public consumption. That was a PR story. Yet, on
March 13, 1996, as the committee was completing our review of Tailhook
matters, the committee received a letter from Commander Stumpf faxed
from his attorney's law firm, I am told, in which he asked to meet with
the committee ``in closed session.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Commander
Stumpf, as well as Chairman Thurmond's response, be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I note that the letter I just referred to
from Commander Stumpf faxed to us on March 13, 1996, was dated February
13, even though it was faxed to us on March 13. I have to assume that
was a typographical error, unless there is another explanation. I am
informed by the majority staff that the committee did not receive such
a request until March 13 and certainly did not receive that prior to
our review of Commander Stumpf's promotion in 1995.
Mr. President, just in case anyone does not understand what it means
to hold a closed session, let me make it clear. It is a proceeding in
which the public is excluded. The press is excluded. Virtually all
staff are excluded. The hearing record is not published. Under the
Senate rules, Senators are specifically prohibited from disclosing
information received in a closed session. When we hold a closed
session, the committee is not free to tell the whole world what
transpired before the committee.
In light of Admiral Boorda's request that the information regarding
Commander Stumpf not be released to the public, and in view of
Commander Stumpf's request to proceed in closed session, the committee
decided during its deliberations last week to not release materials
from the nomination files. While I personally believe the materials
should have been released in light of the decision by Commander
Stumpf's attorney to selectively release information to the public, I
respected the views of others--and still do--who felt the material
should not be released at that time.
Having decided on March 13 not to release the material in deference
to the Navy and Commander Stumpf's privacy interests, the committee now
finds itself subjected to yet another misleading story as a result of a
statement in the press attributed to Commander Stumpf's attorney.
A March 19, 1996, AP wire story states that he ``has no objection''
if the committee releases its material on Commander Stumpf. According
to the story, Commander Stumpf's attorney said, ``I've told them they
can release anything they want.''
Mr. President, I have received no such communication from Commander
Stumpf's attorney. I have been informed again by majority staff that
Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the committee, has received no such
communication. I assume Senator Coats and Senator Byrd have received no
such communication, and they are indicating that is accurate.
I have no idea with whom the attorney, Mr. Gittins, is communicating,
but it is not the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, if
these press accounts accurately quote Commander Stumpf's lawyer--and I
always allow that the press reports could be inaccurate--it would
appear that the rules of the Senate and the committee designed to
protect the privacy of nominees are being manipulated to imply a
willingness to support and release information when, in fact, no such
willingness has been communicated to the committee nor, as far as I
know, to the Navy. I do not know what has been communicated to the
Navy, but I certainly have not had any indication that Commander
Stumpf's attorney has said to the Navy, ``Please release the
information,'' or, ``You have our permission to release all the
information.''
First, counsel is quoted as criticizing the committee for having
closed sessions; then the press reports that the officer whose privacy
is being protected by the committee wants everything made public. Then
the Chief of Naval Operations, who supports the promotion and said so
in the committee, says the material should not be made public.
Subsequently, the officer requests a closed session. After the
committee issues a statement reaffirming its commitment to the
officer's privacy interests, his counsel is quoted as saying he told
the committee again, ``They can release anything they want,'' even
though no such communication had been received by the committee.
If Commander Stumpf's attorney wants all the information related to
his client released to the press, he should clearly communicate his
views to the committee and the Navy. I suggest a letter would be the
normal way to communicate. The Navy has full authority to release all
documents related to Commander Stumpf, including the investigation into
matters relating to Tailhook, the recommendations of the chain of
command, and the final action taken on that investigation by the Navy.
All of that can be released, and then the Senate can decide whether the
committee was correct or not. The news media can then make their
judgment accordingly.
procedural considerations
In the December 19, 1995, Washington Times, Commander Stumpf's
attorney is quoted as stating the committee denied his client the
opportunity ``to face his accusers, cross-examine them and test the so-
called evidence that the committee had collected.''
The March 1996 Armed Forces Journal International reported that
``Stumpf and Gittins asked to speak to the Senators on the committee,
offered to testify, and attempted to discover what new evidence the
committee had uncovered. All requests were refused.''
Mr. President, I am informed again by majority staff that the
committee received no letter from Commander Stumpf's counsel, prior to
the committee action on October 25, 1995, requesting his client be
allowed to testify before the committee, nor did counsel for Commander
Stumpf submit a request to discover additional information.
The materials provided by the Navy make it clear that CDR Stumpf was
well aware that the matter of his promotion was pending before the
Committee. On June 30, 1995, he received the statutorily required
notice from the Navy that his promotion was being delayed, and he was
specifically notified that his involvement in Tailhook was under review
by the Armed Services Committee.
The majority staff has advised me that the committee received one
letter from CDR Stumpf's counsel, dated August 2, 1995, prior to
completion of our review on October 25, 1995. That letter provided
counsel's view of CDR Stumpf's military record and the proceedings
involving his client in the aftermath of Tailhook. The only specific
request of Chairman Thurmond set forth in the letter was to ``end the
delay in the SASC review.'' CDR Stumpf's attorney noted that he was
available for discussions, but did not make any specific request
regarding testimony by his client or discovery of evidence:
[[Page S2635]]
Should you or your staff have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call. Further, I would be pleased to review with
you or a member of your staff the facts as they were
established at the Court of Inquiry.
From the Committee's perspective, this did not constitute a request
that his client be permitted to testify at a Committee hearing, nor did
it constitute a request for further information about the materials
under review by the Committee.
CDR Stumpf's counsel apparently chose to proceed without submitting a
specific request for a hearing, without submitting a specific request
that his client be permitted to testify, and without submitting a
specific request for further details about information available to the
Committee. If discussions with individual members or staff raised any
questions about the Committee's willingness to entertain such requests,
he had the opportunity to provide an unambiguous request in writing. He
did not do so. Whether his tactical decisions at the time were in the
best interests of his client is not a matter for the Committee to
judge.
Each one of those matters, if clearly communicated to the Committee,
would have been given appropriate consideration. It is well known that
nomination proceedings are not criminal trials. They are not formal
evidentiary proceedings. They are designed to assess the fitness of a
nominee for higher office. If counsel for a nominee believes that the
informality of a nomination proceeding is inappropriate in his client's
case, then it is his responsibility to bring his concerns to the
attention of the Committee. If he does not do so, it is puzzling for
him to now claim that his client was denied rights that he did not
request when the matter was pending before the Committee.
reliance on information provided by the navy
Commander Stumpf's attorney is quoted in the December 19, 1995,
Washington Times as stating that the committee's decision to recommend
that he not be promoted was based on ``rumor and innuendo and anonymous
phone calls.''
As the Senator from Indiana said very clearly, that is flat wrong.
The committee's recommendation was based on the records of the fact-
finding board that reviewed Commander Stumpf's activities relating to
Tailhook--the Navy fact-finding board--as well as other documents
officially transmitted to the committee by the Navy.
I am informed by the Navy that Commander Stumpf had full opportunity
at the fact-finding board to testify, to present evidence, and to
cross-examine witnesses.
Mr. President, that is the record that we have been primarily
focusing on. The Navy has advised the committee that it has provided
all of these materials to Commander Stumpf, so he knows what these
materials are. The committee did not rely on rumors. The committee did
not rely on innuendo. The committee certainly did not rely on anonymous
phone calls.
An ``Op-ed'' piece by CDR Stump's attorney in the February 2, 1996
Washington Times states that the Senate relies on ``largely false and
discredited allegations of misconduct collected by the Pentagon
inspector general . . . to make their decisions on Navy promotion
nominations.'' That is an inaccurate and incomplete description of the
Committee's procedures for reviewing Navy and Marine Corps nominations
in the aftermath of Tailhook. After the Navy turned the Tailhook matter
over to the DoD Inspector General, the IG conducted an investigation.
The results of the investigation were returned by the IG to the Navy
for further proceedings, including administrative or disciplinary
proceedings where appropriate. DoD/IG materials do not provide the
primary source of information used by the Committee. In virtually all
cases, including the case of CDR Stumpf, the Committee has relied
primarily on material from the proceedings conducted by the Navy after
the DoD/IG investigation, as well as related documents provided by the
Navy.
It is noteworthy, however, that in at least one well known, contested
nomination, many Senators placed significant reliance on information
developed by the DoD Inspector General, rather than in a Navy
proceeding. That was the nomination of Admiral Kelso to retire in
grade, in which the military judge in a Tailhook court-martial, Captain
William T. Vest, Jr., opined that Admiral Kelso observed misconduct at
Tailhook, whereas the DoD Inspector General, who reviewed the judge's
opinion in light of the IG's investigations, concluded that Admiral
Kelso did not observe the misconduct. As one who fought hard on the
Senate floor for ADM Kelso's confirmation, I do not believe that Navy
and Marine Corps nominees would want the Committee to preclude
consideration of such material from the DoD/IG.
Commander Stumpf's attorney, in a February 2, 1996, op-ed article,
attempted to analogize his client's case to that of Adm. Joseph
Prueher. According to Commander Stumpf's attorney in this February 2,
1996, op-ed piece in the Washington Times, ``Just last Friday, the
Senate failed to vote to confirm Adm. Joseph Prueher as Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command. The reason? A few Senators, bowing to feminist
pressure, decided to revisit, for the third time, Admiral Prueher's
handling of a sexual harassment case while superintendent of the U.S.
Naval Academy.''
Mr. President, I am sure that the Navy, as well as Admiral Prueher,
were just as surprised as I was to learn on February 2 from Commander
Stumpf's attorney that Admiral Prueher's confirmation had not gone
through. The Senate received Admiral Prueher's nomination on Wednesday,
January 10; the Armed Services Committee reported him out of committee
on Friday, January 26; and the Senate unanimously confirmed him on
Tuesday, January 30, 2 days before the op-ed piece appeared in the
Washington Times. The date of the admiral's confirmation, January 30,
was the first day the Senate was in session after the nomination was
reported out of committee. That is prompt action by any standard.
Moreover, the date of Admiral Prueher's confirmation by the Senate,
January 30, was 2 days before Commander Stumpf's attorney wrote in the
Washington Times that the Senate was ``bowing to feminist pressure.''
In the same article, Commander Stumpf's attorney stated: ``The Senate
now fancies itself as a super selection board, reviewing de novo
executive branch promotion decisions for political advantage.'' That
opinion has been echoed by others, such as the statement in the March
1996 Armed Forces Journal International that ``Cmdr. Stumpf is being
sacrificed on the altar of political correctness''.
As I noted earlier in my statement, Senator Coats and Senator Byrd,
as leaders of the Personnel Subcommittee, have the unenviable task of
taking the lead in reviewing nominations involving adverse information.
I have been chairman of the Manpower Subcommittee. That is the first
subcommittee I headed after I became a member of the committee. I know
how hard that job is. It is one of the most important jobs, one of the
most difficult jobs. I think we owe both Senator Coats and Senator Byrd
a great deal of gratitude for the work they do. They have given the
committee a serious, sober recommendation in each case based on the
merits.
I do not believe that anyone can seriously argue that they or the
committee have gained any political advantage by taking on this
responsibility. If there is any political advantage attached to it,
then someone is going to have to explain it to me. After being in the
Senate for 24 years, I cannot think of anything that has less political
advantage to it than this tough, hard, but absolutely essential job.
This is not something that the Senate grabbed. This is something that
the Constitution of the United States gives to the Senate, a
responsibility. We are doing our constitutional duty. If anyone does
not think the Senate ought to be involved--``get the Senate out of the
Navy''--then they ought to change the Constitution of the United
States. This is our duty. It is our duty. As long as I am on the
committee, I, for one, will continue to exercise that duty.
Mr. President, the committee has a keen appreciation for the values
that differentiate military service from civilian society, the
requirements of good order and discipline in the armed forces, and the
standards of responsibility and accountability applicable to military
commanders--including
[[Page S2636]]
their responsibility and accountability for the morale and welfare of
their troops.
The committee also has a clear understanding that a promotion is not
a reward for past service; it is a judgment on the fitness of an
officer for higher levels of command and responsibility.
Mr. President, it has been the traditional practice of the Committee
on Armed Services to look primarily to the statutes, regulation, and
time-honored customs of military service in assessing adverse
information on a nominee.
One of those standards is the affirmative obligation of commanding
officers, under section 5947 of title 10, United States Code, to
demonstrate ``a good example of virtue, * * * to be vigilant in
inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their
command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral
practices; * * * and to take all necessary and proper measures, under
the laws, regulations, and customs of the naval service, to promote and
safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and general welfare of
the officers * * * under their command or charge.''
Article 0802.1 of the Navy regulations makes it clear that commanding
officers operate under a higher standard of responsibility, and that
they are not relieved of that responsibility simply because they are
not present during misconduct or a mishap:
The responsibility of the commanding officer for his or her
command is absolute, except when, and to the extent to which,
he or she has been relieved therefrom by competent authority
or as provided in these regulations. The authority of the
commanding officer is commensurate with his or her
responsibility. While the commanding officer may, at his or
her discretion, and when not contrary to regulations,
delegate authority to subordinates for the execution of
details, such delegation of authority shall in no way relieve
the commanding officer of continued responsibility for the
safety, well-being and efficiency of the entire command.
Article 0802.4 of the Navy Regulations places a special
responsibility on commanding officers with respect to their conduct and
the conduct of their subordinates:
The commanding officer and his or her subordinates shall
exercise leadership through personal example, moral
responsibility and judicious attention to the welfare of
persons under their control or supervision. Such leadership
shall be exercised in order to achieve a positive, dominant
influence on the performance of persons in the Department of
the Navy.
Mr. President, these are not post-Tailhook standards. These are not
``politically correct'' rules of the nineties foisted on the Navy by
``feminist pressure.'' Those standards were in effect at the time of
Tailhook and reflect bedrock principles of good order and discipline.
The committee also looks to the standards in section 654(a) of title
10, United States Code, which states:
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian
life in that--
(A) the extraordinarily responsibilities of the armed
forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the
critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military
community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a
specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws,
rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous
restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be
acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed
forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day
commencing upon entry on active duty and not ending until
that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the
armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at
all times that the member has a military status, whether the
member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on
duty or off duty.
Those findings reflect some of the most fundamental, enduring values
of military service.
Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee has reviewed Navy and
Marine Corps nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook, including CDR
Stump's promotion, in the context of these well-known military
standards. In light of these standards, it would have been
irresponsible for the Committee to ignore adverse information related
to a nominee's conduct or leadership at Tailhook 91, set forth in
information provided to the Committee by the Department of Defense--
particularly in view of the military significance of that event.
Tailhook 1991 was designed and promoted to showcase the aviation
components of the Department of the Navy. The Navy actively encouraged
members to attend to enhance their professional military development.
The Navy provided significant financial, logistical, and personnel
support--including featured presentations by the Secretary of the Navy,
the Chief of Naval Operations, the Assistant Chief of Staff (Air
Warfare), and numerous other Navy and Marine Corps officers and
civilian officials. Many military personnel traveled under government
orders, which paid for their transportation, food, and lodging. Over
1,700 were transported at government expense,
Tailhook 1991 was a showcase event where all officers, particularly
those in command, were under an obligation to ensure that their
conduct, and that of their subordinates would represent the very best
in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. The failure of some to
demonstrate appropriate standards of conduct and leadership is an
appropriate consideration in assessing an officer's fitness for
promotion.
Mr. President, I also reject any suggestion that the committee acted
out of political motivation or as a result of outside pressures.
Mr. President, I personally talked to every Secretary of the Navy
since Tailhook came up and every Chief of Naval Operations since
Tailhook came up. I have cautioned them against overreacting. I have
cautioned them against denial of due process for individuals accused of
inappropriate behavior. I have cautioned them against unlawful command
influence. I have done that personally. I have felt it was my
responsibility to counsel the Navy not to overreact and to give to
their own members the kind of due process that they deserve.
During my tenure as chairman I assured every civilian and military
leader of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy
involved in nominations that the committee would carefully consider
each nomination on the merits, and that they should not hesitate to
recommend promotion in any case where the Navy deemed it appropriate.
The committee has ensured that when the Navy recommends promotion in
a case involving a Tailhook certification, we are provided with the
Navy's official information, not rumor, innuendo, or anonymous
information.
When the committee has received information from the Navy bearing on
an individual's conduct or leadership at Tailhook, we have considered
it carefully and judiciously on a case-by-case basis.
Let us look at the facts. Since Tailhook, the committee has approved
36,839 Navy nominations, 6,431 Marine nominations, a total of 43,270
nominations in the Navy and Marine Corps since Tailhook. During that
period, how many have we not recommended because of Tailhook matters? A
total of 8; 8, a total of 8. You would not think that from some of the
hysteria going on in some of the news coverage, particularly editorials
that I have seen.
Let me repeat, the committee has approved 43,270 Navy and Marine
Corps nominations and turned down only 8 since Tailhook came up. During
the same period, 15 officers who were the subject of administrative
action by the Navy as a result of Tailhook have been confirmed by the
Senate. These figures clearly demonstrate that the committee has
reviewed each of these nominations involving a Tailhook certification
on the merits.
While reasonable people could come to different conclusions on those
who were recommended, as well as those who were disapproved, the fact
is, we have not indiscriminately rejected anyone who had been
investigated in connection with Tailhook. I have personally taken the
floor of the Senate to try to get nominations through and have
succeeded virtually in every case, with the help of the committee and
the good judgment of the Senate, that were bitterly opposed here on the
floor relating the Tailhook.
I think people ought to have a little knowledge of history. I do not
expect people to understand everything that has been done, but there
ought to be some slight knowledge and acknowledgement of the history of
how we handled this whole matter of Tailhook.
[[Page S2637]]
Someone ought to recall also the Secretary of the Navy decided that
the Navy botched this investigation so badly that he himself, back in
1992, in a previous administration, removed the Navy from the
investigative responsibilities because it had been so badly botched.
It is also important to contrast the Senate's action with the results
of action taken within the executive branch. As a result of the actions
taken by the Navy and Marine Corps, 39 officers have had their careers
adversely affected. Twelve officers were rejected by promotion boards,
another 12 who were selected by a board subsequently were removed from
a promotion list within the executive branch, and another 15 officers
resigned or retired before being considered for promotion after
receiving adverse administrative action by the Navy. In other words,
the number of officers whose careers have been adversely affected by
the Navy outnumbers the officers returned by the Senate by a ratio of
more than 4 to 1.
Mr. President, this Committee has a strong record of support for
military nominations, even in the face of considerable criticism. We
have been willing to take the political heat. We did it in the case of
Admiral Kelso. We did it in the case of Admiral Mauz. We did it in the
case of Admiral Prueher. We have done it in the case of 15 nominees who
were confirmed even though administrative action had been taken against
them as a result of Tailhook. There was no political advantage in our
action, but we did it because it was the right thing to do.
oversight, leadership, and responsibility
Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee has a vital oversight
role over the Armed Forces, including matters involving nomination and
promotions. The Navy failed to provide the Armed Services Committee
with the information required to assess Commander Stumpf's fitness for
promotion prior to the Senate's vote on his nomination. It was
incumbent on this committee to conduct a review of that promotion when
information was belatedly turned over to the committee.
I am informed by majority staff that, prior to the Committee's
October 25, 1995, decision to recommend that Commander Stumpf not be
promoted, his attorney did not raise a legal objection to the propriety
of the committee's review. Although the obvious outcome of any such
review would be a communication to the Secretary of the Navy regarding
the merits of Commander Stumpf's promotion, counsel did not raise a
legal objection to any communication from the committee to the
Secretary. Counsel for Commander Stumpf was well aware of the
committee's review of his client's promotion, as reflected in his
August 2, 1995, letter to Senator Thurmond discussing the review and
the action taken by the Secretary of the Navy to delay Commander
Stumpf's promotion. The letter vigorously supported the merits of his
client's promotion and requested that the committee complete its
review. The letter, however, did not state any legal objection to the
committee's review, the action of Secretary Dalton in delaying the
promotion, or to any communication from the committee to the Secretary
on the merits of the promotion.
As I noted earlier, the committee's letter of November 13, 1995,
specifically advised the Secretary of the Navy that:
The committee recognizes that, in light of the Senate
having given its advice and consent to Commander Stumpf's
nomination, the decision to promote him or not to promote him
rests solely within the executive branch.
Let me repeat that, Mr. President. We made it very clear that ``the
decision to promote him or not to promote him rests solely within the
executive branch.'' Mr. President, those were not idle words. We fully
recognized that the Secretary of the Navy--acting under a delegation of
authority from the President--has unfettered discretion under section
629 of title 10, United States Code, to remove or not remove the name
of an officer from a selection board list.
On December 22, 1995, Secretary Dalton directed that Commander
Stumpf's name be removed from the promotion list.
Mr. President, I would like to make my own position clear.
These are tough decisions. I do not quarrel with anyone who comes to
a different conclusion. They involve subjective judgment. Different
people draw the line between right and wrong in different places. Based
upon the information available at the time, we made our decision. I
made my judgment about right and wrong, and I made my judgment about
the question of leadership. That judgment was based on the
recommendation, the very thoughtful recommendation, of Senator Coats
and Senator Byrd.
Others may have a different definition of right and wrong. Others may
have a different definition of leadership. They have every right to
their perspective. All of us have some obligation to strive for
consistency in drawing the line, consistency between officers who may
have been involved in similar circumstances. To draw one line for
officers in the Navy and another line for officers in the Marine Corps
relating to the same event, to me, is totally unacceptable.
The promotion process must ensure that all officers meet the high
standards of conduct and leadership that demonstrate potential for
leadership at a higher grade. This is appropriate not just for the
Navy, but for the Army, Air Force, and for the Marine Corps. Does the
Navy now want to set a standard for leadership lower than the Marines?
Does the Navy want to set a standard of leadership lower than the Army?
Does the Navy want to set a standard of leadership lower than the
United States Air Force? That is a question that the Navy leadership
has to answer.
Mr. President, if the Navy's withholding of information prior to the
Senate's confirmation of Commander Stumpf was the result of
administrative error, then the Navy's administrative process needs
review and overhaul. These administrative errors deprived Secretary
Perry, the Secretary of Defense, of the information he needed to make
his recommendations to the U.S. Senate and to the President. These
administrative errors deprived the Armed Services Committee of the
information that we needed to make a recommendation to the Senate.
These administrative errors deprived the Senate of the information it
needed prior to deciding whether Commander Stumpf should have been
confirmed.
In closing, Mr. President, I make the following points: First, my
review of the material provided to the committee by the Navy, including
the record of the conduct, review, and disposition of the proceedings
of the factfinding board confirms my assessment that Senator Coats'
recommendation to the committee was sound, and that the committee's
October 25, 1995, recommendation that Commander Stumpf not be promoted
was appropriate.
Second, it was appropriate to the committee to communicate its
recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy, particularly in light of
the Navy's failure to provide the committee with the information it had
pledged to provide prior to the committee's recommendation to the
Senate that Commander Stumpf be confirmed.
Third, it was appropriate for the committee to remind Secretary
Dalton that he had unfettered direct discretion to promote or not
promote Commander Stumpf, which we did in the letter. If Secretary
Dalton believed in December that Commander Stumpf's promotion was
warranted, he could have promoted him at that time. The letter made
that absolutely clear.
Fourth, the executive branch has an obligation to conduct a thorough
review of adverse information with respect to all nominations,
including but not limited to Tailhook. In terms of the issues of
conduct and leadership bearing on the individual's fitness for
promotion, the question in Commander Stumpf's case, for example, was
not whether he was guilty of a crime, but whether he met the standards
of leadership that would qualify him for a promotion to a higher grade.
Fifth, the executive branch must strive for consistency in its
approach to military nominations, and consistency is essential for
fairness. Although each proposed nomination must be judged on its own
merits and its own facts, it is critical that careful attention be paid
to issues of consistent treatment, particularly when adverse
information is related to a single event such as Tailhook. The Navy
leadership
[[Page S2638]]
has effectively forced 39 officers to retire or resign or has removed
their names from promotion lists for Tailhook-related matters. The
committee has a very difficult time justifying favorable action on
other nominees whose conduct or leadership deficiencies appear to be
worse than those who were not nominated or who were forced to retire or
resign by the United States Navy.
Sixth, the Navy should determine whether Commander Stumpf's attorney
is serious about the public release of information concerning his
client. If so, the Navy should not be selective in the release of
information. The Navy should make available a complete record of
proceedings concerning Commander Stumpf in the aftermath of Tailhook,
including the full record of proceedings, review, recommendations, and
action on the fact-finding board. If they do, there will be no mystery
anymore and everybody can make their own considered judgment.
Seventh, after learning that the Navy had failed to provide the
committee with information about Commander Stumpf, prior to the
committee's action on his nomination, the committee requested the Navy
to provide ``a complete description of the conduct, review and
disposition of the allegations concerning Commander Stumpf''. The Navy
provided information to the committee in response to this request.
Subsequent to the committee's October 25, 1995, meeting on Commander
Stumpf's nomination, the Navy has provided the committee with
additional information, including information on the review and
disposition of the allegations concerning Commander Stumpf, which we
asked for to begin with. The Navy needs to explain why, after failing
to provide the commitee with timely information prior to the
confirmation of Commander Stumpf by the Senate, the Navy subsequently
did not provide the committee with complete information on the review
and disposition of the allegations.
Finally, Mr. President, and what I number as eighth, section 629 of
title 10, United States Code, provides that ``An officer whose name is
removed from a list continues to be eligible for consideration of
promotion''. As noted in the statement issued by the committee on March
13 with respect to Commander Stumpf, quoting from the letter, ``If he
is nominated again for promotion to captain, the committee will give
the nomination the same careful consideration it would give to any
nominee''.
I certainly concur in that. For my part, I would carefully consider
any information that might be presented by Commander Stumpf or on his
behalf. I would consider the full record of information provided by the
executive branch, and I would certainly take into consideration the
views of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee on both sides of
this issue, before reaching a final conclusion on the merits of such a
nomination, should it be submitted to the Senate.
Mr. President, I close by saying I do not believe that the committee
held Commander Stumpf responsible for the Navy's administrative errors.
If Commander Stumpf is nominated in the future, I would separate these
matters, and I would view the Navy's administrative errors as separate
and apart from Commander Stumpf's nomination.
Exhibit 1
Robert E. Stumpf,
2616 Boush Quarter,
Virginia Beach, VA, February 13, 1996.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: As it appears that the Committee
continues to have lingering concerns about my promotion and
my attendance at the Tailhook 1991 Symposium, it may be
beneficial to the Committee to hear from me personally.
Accordingly, I respectfully request to meet with the
Committee in closed session at the earliest opportunity to
address Committee questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Stumpf,
Commander, USN.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 14, 1996.
Commander Robert E. Stumpf,
2616 Boush Quarter, Virginia Beach, VA.
Dear Commander Stumpf: This is in response to your letter
dated February 13, 1996. It was first received by Committee
via telefax on March 13, 1996.
I understand your request to appear before the Committee in
closed session. However, at present there is no nomination
before the Committee concerning you. Should a nomination
concerning you be presented to the Committee in the future,
your request will be given appropriate consideration.
Sincerely,
Strom Thurmond,
Chairman.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the
remarks by both Mr. Coats, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, and
by Mr. Nunn, the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
First of all, with reference to the work that has been done on this
particular subcommittee, I want to pay tribute to the Senator from
Indiana, Mr. Coats. As far as I am concerned, between the two of us, he
has done by far the major part of the work. He has shouldered the
workload and he has done it professionally and with great skill and
exceedingly well. I admire his courage for taking the position that he
is taking on this particular issue here this evening.
Mr. President, with reference to the Senator from Georgia, I came to
the Senate 38 years ago, at which time there was a very distinguished
Georgian by the name of Richard Brevard Russell, who was chairman of
the Senate Committee on Armed Services. I became a member of that
committee 2 years after I had become a Member of the Senate, and I
served with Senator Russell on that committee.
In these 38 years, Mr. President, I have seen some great chairmen of
that committee, chairmen from both parties. But in my considered
judgment--and I realize that I have my own flaws and I am capable of
erring in my judgment--the two greatest chairmen of the Armed Services
Committee in my 38 years here have been those two distinguished
Senators from the State of Georgia. Senator Richard Russell was someone
whom I adopted as my mentor. He never knew that, but in my own heart I
admired him so greatly that I tried to follow in his footsteps and
study the rules and precedents of the Senate. It was my resolution
which, when adopted by the Rules Committee of the Senate and by the
Senate, brought about the naming of what was then the Old Senate Office
Building, the Richard Brevard Russell Building. That is how much I
admired Senator Russell.
I admire this distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, who
will be retiring from the Senate at the end of this year, no less,
insofar as his skill is concerned and handling of the work of the
committee. I have marveled at the organization of the committee and the
organization, work, and dedication of the Senator from Georgia. I have
often said to others that Senator Nunn is probably the finest chairman
of the committee that we have had in the Senate.
Now, Napoleon once had a general staff officer in his army by the
name of Michel Ney. Well, Marshal Ney was cut off from the rest of the
army of Napoleon, and he had to fight his way through thousands of
Cossacks, which he did. He came to the River Niemen and he crossed it.
In so doing, he lost all of his guns, but he finally was reunited with
the other units of Napoleon's army. When Napoleon heard that Ney had
escaped and had returned, he was overjoyed. He said to some of the
other officers, ``I have 400 million francs in the cellars of the
Tuileries, and I would gladly give them all for the ransom of my good
companion in arms.'' That was the old palace in Paris, which later
burned down. ``I have 400 million francs in the cellars of the
Tuileries, and I would gladly give them all for the ransom of my good
companion in arms.'' That is how much Napoleon prized this officer,
General Ney.
Well, I feel that way about Senator Nunn, and I am proud to be
associated with him and with the distinguished Senator from Indiana in
their remarks here today. I will be very brief.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the distinguished
Senator from Georgia, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services, on the matter of the promotion of Commander Robert Stumpf,
U.S. Navy.
It is very clear to me that the committee has acted with great
responsibility in the handling of the so-called Tailhook 1991 events,
and attempted to
[[Page S2639]]
protect the rights of the individuals involved while working closely
with the Navy and the Department of Defense to get to the bottom of the
events that did occur. It is vitally important that the Navy be
consistent and forthright in its consideration of the individual cases
that still are pending, and take every step to insure that the lessons
learned from the scandal can be absorbed and remedies can be
implemented.
In the light of these considerations, it is disappointing to see the
kind of recent attacks that have been leveled at the Armed Services
Committee by the media, and by Commander Stumpf's attorney.
I believe that Commander Stumpf's nomination was clearly prejudiced
by the incredible administrative ineptness that accompanied his
nomination. According to the well-established procedures that had been
put into place by the committee, in cooperation with the Navy, adverse
information that was associated with Tailhook should have been
forwarded to the committee when this nomination for promotion to
captain was first provided to the committee. It is extremely
unfortunate that only after the fact, that is, after the nomination was
approved by the Senate, did the committee learn of the results of a
board of inquiry into Commander Stumpf's participation at Tailhook.
The issue that is at the heart of this matter, Mr. President, is the
question of consistency of standards by which we hold commanding
officers in the Navy accountable for their actions. Senator Nunn has
itemized in detail the standards that exist in the law and in Navy
regulations, and they are engraved on the long honorable traditions of
the Navy. Commander Stumpf, like all commanding officers, bears a heavy
responsibility not only for his own actions, but also for the actions
of the officers and men under his command. That is what this
unfortunate affair is really all about.
It was William Wordsworth who said, ``No matter how lofty you are in
your department, the responsibility for what the lowliest assistant is
doing is yours.''
Frederick the Great of Prussia said, that, ``The quality of the
troops depends directly on that of the officers: a good colonel; a good
battalion.''
That is why the committee acted properly in holding up those
standards as a mirror by which to judge the qualifications of
commanding officers for further promotion, given what happened in the
hospitality suites of the Las Vegas Tailhook convention hotel. It is
not a pretty picture, and the record in the case of Commander Stumpf is
complete enough, in my judgment, to call his nomination into serious
question. Given the visibility of Commander Stumpf, and his
professional achievements as an airman in combat in Desert Storm, and
as a role model as the flight leader of the Blue Angels Navy
Demonstration Team, what we do here in terms of his promotion is all
the more important. It is the job of the committee to reconcile this
matter and make a considered judgment based on standards, not on
personalities.
Additionally, while Senators may well differ in their judgment as to
the seriousness of the charges brought against Commander Stumpf
regarding his performance as a commanding officer during the Tailhook
convention, the failure of the Navy to provide the committee with all
pertinent information readily available to the Navy, makes the
situation far worse for his nomination. We have the appearance of a
coverup of vital information bearing on his nomination. How could such
an administrative error have, in good faith, occurred? Clearly the
information was pertinent to his nomination, in that the committee did
inform the Secretary of the Navy that it would not have agreed to
Commander Stumpf's promotion, had it been provided the information at
the time when the Stumpf nomination was pending before the committee.
I think it is important to look further into this vital omission--and
I have not spoken with the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee about
this--but it would be my hope that consideration might be given to
having the DOD inspector general investigate the matter. If there is a
flaw in the way in which, after all this time and furor over Tailhook,
the paper trail is provided to the Committee, then it should be
corrected. If there was an intention on the part of one or another
element of the Navy bureaucracy that thought it was doing Commander
Stumpf a favor by not providing the committee with this information,
then it should be known that a great disservice was done to Commander
Stumpf and to the Navy by the omission.
Mr. President, as the Senator from Georgia has pointed out, Commander
Stumpf has engaged an attorney who seems to think that his client has
something to gain by attacking the procedures and integrity of the
Armed Services Committee. The usage of the terms ``McCarthyism,''
``blackmail,'' and operating on the basis of ``rumor'' in describing
the committee's actions in the matter are ludicrous, and further
prejudice his client's case. Commander Stumpf, in my opinion, would be
far better off with no attorney than with the advice he is currently
getting.
The committee has decided to keep the record of the nomination
confidential, but if further action is warranted, such as a
resubmission by the Navy of the nomination, then I think the record
should be open for all to see. Lay it all out. It should be opened
entirely.
Additionally, Commander Stumpf has asked for a hearing by the
committee, and I think that request should be granted if his nomination
is resubmitted by the Navy. But the hearing and the record should be
out in the open. Let the sunshine in.
Commander Stumpf's lawyer has openly attacked the committee, there is
a campaign underway to impugn the procedures of the committee. The
committee has little choice but to open the record. All the facts
should be on the table. Senators can judge for themselves whether the
Navy's own standard of conduct for commanding officers was breached
substantially enough for the nomination to be rejected.
Mr. President, fame is a vapor; popularity, an accident; riches take
wings; those who cheer today may curse tomorrow; only one thing
endures--character. And it is the character of the Navy here that is at
stake.
I would not want to send my grandsons into an organization that I
thought would destroy character. I would expect the organization to be
one that would build character. And it is the character of the Navy
that we are concerned about.
Mr. President, I thank again Senator Nunn, and I thank Senator Coats
for the fine work that they have done. And I regret that they have been
made to suffer as a result of their efforts to do the right thing by
all concerned.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first I would like to be associated with the remarks
in this regard by the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, my friend
and colleague from Indiana, and with the statement that was made by my
longtime friend and seatmate, Senator Nunn from Georgia, and, last but
not least, the excellent summation just given to the U.S. Senate by a
Member of this body who we all cherish and recognize for his sound
leadership and common sense over the years.
Mr. President, I do not take any pleasure at all in making the
remarks that I am about to make. It would have been much easier to just
skip it and not say anything. But I am very much moved by the unfair
attacks on the Armed Services Committee on which the four Members now
in the Senate have served for a long, long time. For myself, this will
be my 18th year. And I come to the floor to give my views as briefly as
I can. I have no written statement, but I am speaking from my heart on
this matter that I think is being glossed over.
Mr. President, I have not been happy with the majority on the
committee, both Democrats and Republicans, for what I feel has been a
folding like an accordian into the spotlight of pressure by the press
that has been brought on this particular issue.
I take no pleasure in this, Mr. President, because as a veteran of
World War II--and 2 years of that overseas--I was taken over there by
the U.S. Navy, and they brought me back. I have a
[[Page S2640]]
very soft spot in my heart for the Navy of the United States of
America. There is no better navy anywhere--nor do I suggest there ever
has been--than the men and women that make up the U.S. Navy today. And
I am proud of all of them. But I wish to raise some questions and cite
some examples tonight on what I feel are some holes, if you will, in
some places--not a lot--but in some places in the top leadership of
this Navy that have been spotted and brought out into the light with
several events of the last few years.
Talking about the Navy, I am not going to go into my record with
votes and the leadership positions that I have taken for the Navy in a
whole series of areas. I guess the only serious difference I ever had
with regard to some of the initiatives of the U.S. Navy was over the
reincarnation of the battleships, which I said was nonsense at the
time. It was a multimillion-dollar fiasco. We brought four battleships
back into commission when we obviously did not need them. But, under
the leadership of the Navy, the Congress of the United States was
convinced otherwise. We are still paying for that costly mistake. But
do we not all make mistakes? I think I was right on that, but I believe
that event was the only time in my 18 years of service in the Armed
Services Committee that I had serious disagreement with the U.S. Navy.
I emphasize again that I do not condemn the Navy as a whole. But I am
here to support the outstanding efforts by Senator Coats, Senator Nunn,
Senator Byrd, and others who have taken on the dragon in this case--the
dragon being certain key parts of leadership of the U.S. Navy. That is
not easy to do, but it is something that has to be done.
I cite, for example, that--while I think Tailhook, we can all agree,
was not one of the finer moments of the great history of the U.S.
Navy--it may be that it has been overshadowed, and I join with Senator
Nunn in his comments. I have heard him say it. Let us not overreact to
things of this nature. But we have to act. That is part of our
responsibility in the Armed Services Committee.
I stood on this floor to give an example of how in Tailhook and
everybody within 100 miles of Las Vegas during that weekend, that
riotous weekend, I might say, of ``fun loving fun,'' I guess, by
primarily some of the officers of this man's Navy--and sometimes boys
will be boys--leadership people should not be boys, and that is my
concern and that is my major problem without condemning any of them or
all of them.
I have not been one of those who sanctimoniously says it was such a
terrible thing that we have to do something about it. I stood at that
desk in the Chamber and provided the leadership for the Armed Services
Committee with a lot of serious debate with regard to not retiring a
very famous, very capable, top leadership man in the U.S. Navy, an
admiral who happened to be at Tailhook but was not involved in any of
these things. And I stood there and took the advice of Sam Nunn and
others of saying let us keep this in perspective. So we retired that
outstanding admiral and did not take away his top-grade retirement as
some in this body wished to do. So I simply give that as an example
that this Senator is not consumed by Tailhook, but I am concerned about
Tailhook.
I emphasize once again that we have a great Navy, but some in the
leadership of that great organization have let that organization down
in recent years. Let me cite one or two examples. I do not know whether
they have been talked about by my friends and colleagues before or not.
There certainly has been, though, a most unfortunate series,
unfortunate series, Mr. President, of serious and distressing
shortcomings in part of the U.S. Navy in the last few years.
Without going into any detail, I would simply cite the problems of
cheating and scandal and sex at the Naval Academy in Annapolis that we
finally seem to be getting turned around, but there was too much of it.
I would simply say that one of the most distressing things that I ever
saw practiced by certain select leadership, not everybody, was the
coverup of the blowup of the Iowa battleship, one of those four that I
referenced earlier that I thought should never have been brought back
in any event.
Just so you will remember, my colleagues in the Senate, that was the
case where after a high-level naval investigation of the blowup on the
battleship Iowa that caused 130 some deaths. The Navy leadership, part
of it, came forth with a program that it was the responsibility of two
homosexuals. Well, it turned out later when some of us wanted proof,
that the two homosexuals were not involved at all; it was a typical
case of the old-boy network working very effectively in part of the
coverup. They were not successful, but they almost were.
I would simply like to mention in that regard also the glossy
coverup, or not so glossy coverup, that the U.S. Navy, some of its
leaders, did after Tailhook was exposed in the press. We would not have
had the difficulty that we are in today with Commander Stumpf nor would
he have his difficulties at least to this extent were it not for the
fact that key leadership in the U.S. Navy again fouled up by not
following a very simple procedure that was well-known to all of the
leadership of the U.S. Navy when Commander Stumpf's nomination came up,
and I am sure that Senator Coats and Senator Nunn went into that in
great detail.
Then there was another serious situation with regard to the spy
scandal of a marine in Moscow in our Embassy. That was a tough blow.
I simply say, Mr. President, that all of these attacks that have been
made on the integrity of the Armed Services Committee in the press are
nonsense. And for rules and reasons, those of us who are knowledgeable
of the full extent of this situation for the protection of the innocent
and not to inflame the story are not privileged to talk about it in
detail. One editorial that I read said that was McCarthyism, keeping
the secret to ourselves like Joe McCarthy did. Well, those of us who
have had the top secrets of the United States of America with us and
live with us all the time we have been in the Senate know our
responsibility and know how to live up to the commitments that we make
while editorial writers are not so constrained.
I thought one of the most disgusting articles that I read on this was
by the Detroit News. I do not know anything about the Detroit News
except that they printed an editorial on Friday, March 15, 1996:
``Commander Stumpf Gets Blacklisted.'' They then go on to launch an
all-out attack on Senator Carl Levin, who most of us on both sides of
the aisle recognize as one of the most decent, most fair, sound men in
the Senate. But the Detroit News was very critical. Let me quote from
that:
Senator Levin and his aides refused to discuss Commander
Stumpf's case or the workings of the Armed Services
Committee, or anything else for that matter. Citing his
allegiance to striking unions, he refuses to talk to the News
but his committee colleagues lack so handy an excuse.
Carl Levin is one of my best friends in the Senate. I came here with
him. And for the Detroit News to attack that fine U.S. Senator in the
manner they did is unconscionable. And many other members of the press
including our own Navy Times, of course. The Navy Times in an editorial
of March 11, 1996, says ``Commander Stumpf is a Marked Man:''
The Senate can strike a blow for naval aviation safety
right now by dropping the Tailhook ``acid test'' now used to
block some aviator promotions.
And at the bottom of the editorial, the last paragraph:
But Tailhook was nearly 5 years ago. It's time for the sore
to heal. It's time to abandon that list and help the men and
women of naval aviation get back to the basics of safe
flying.
Five years is not very long. I also cite, for the record, an
excellent statement in this regard made by a nonmember of the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Grassley of Iowa, printed in the
Congressional Record of March 13, 1996, on S. 1999.
Senator Grassley goes on to say that he feels that the flagging of
officers who were promoted, who were investigated, should be and should
continue to be brought to the attention of the Armed Services
Committee. And I agree.
That does not mean, as Senator Coats and Senator Nunn and Senator
Byrd have pointed out, that we blacklist these people at all. That is
not the way we work. I simply say that the
[[Page S2641]]
major reason that Commander Stumpf has had some trouble was, once
again, the top leadership of the U.S. Navy failed to do the routine
thing when they submitted Stumpf to the Armed Services Committee for us
to discharge our responsibilities that we have sworn to uphold. They
just forgot.
It was a legitimate error. I do not believe it was intentional, but
it was another error, another shortcoming of some of the leadership of
the U.S. Navy.
I simply say that the Armed Services Committee, nor any of its
members, are at fault. Yet, our integrity is being questioned because
of what we collectively did and thought was our duty.
Let me close, if I might, by giving my own personal view, without
detailing any of the information at my disposal that, for good reasons,
I am sworn to protect. I know most or all of the details, some of them
sordid, about Tailhook. I happen to feel that Commander Stumpf may be
being overly criticized for some things. It is true, in the opinion of
this Senator, that he was not in that room at a time when an act was
taking place that I think would have probably guaranteed that he not be
recommended for promotion. He got out in time. But he did not do
anything about anything that he saw going on.
But I simply say and emphasize once again that I am not one of those
who feel that Commander Stumpf should be blacklisted, should be
eliminated for consideration--and I emphasize consideration--by the
Armed Services Committee in carrying out its responsibilities. My view
is that circumstances following the unfortunate foul-up by the top
echelon in the U.S. Navy in not giving us the information is the main
reason for the problem.
But what happened after that? And this is something that I feel very
strongly about. After that happened, we began to see articles
appearing, although none of the authors came to see me. The old boy
network took over for a top gun.
Let me emphasize that again. The old boy network took over for a top
gun and dedicated themselves to seeing, as quickly as possible, that
the promotion was granted.
I think--and I am very much upset with Commander Stumpf--that he did
not take the first logical step that he could, should, and had the
right to take, by appealing to a board that looks after these things,
called the correction board. No, he bypassed that, because the other
top guns and their supporters went to work by lobbying.
So it seems to me that if and when I have a responsibility to
discharge, as one member, my duties as one member of the Armed Services
Committee, I would not, having known what I know, interfere with
Stumpf's promotion on the basis of Tailhook. Some other Members may not
see it that way. But I am very much concerned about an individual that
we look to, and certainly is one of the finest performing officers that
we have today in the U.S. Navy, there is no question about that, but
there are other things that we look for when we go through the
promotion scheme. In all likelihood, Commander Stumpf, if and when he
is promoted --as I think he will be, eventually, to captain; he is very
likely to become an admiral someday. There are lots of things beside
your ability to fly and your courage in battle that play into the
promotion role.
As much as anything else, I simply say that as far as this Senator is
concerned, the hiring of a lawyer without going through the proper
procedures is a step in the wrong direction and emphasizes what I am
most concerned about in this particular matter, and that is that the
Navy, unto themselves, with the machoism that they show time and time
again, decided they were going to get the Armed Services Committee,
regardless of our faithfulness, regardless of what we have done,
regardless of what we will do as members of that committee in the
future.
And the crowning blow, although I recognize that he has a right to do
it, was a Washington Post news story of March 19 that I will submit for
the Record. The headline is ``Tailhook Figure Files Suit Over Navy
Promotion.'' Going to the courts, hiring a lawyer to get what he wants
and is probably entitled to, it seems to me was not the wise way to
proceed.
I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. EXON. Some will disagree with me, probably, about Commander
Stumpf. But the main reason for my appearing on the floor tonight was
to try to set the record straight as to the legitimate role that the
Armed Services Committee has played in this matter. We played the role
right by the book.
I happen to feel, when Commander Stumpf comes before us again, he may
be approved. He might get my support. But I will be asking some
questions about why the lawsuit, why the full-court press by some of
his friends, trying to discredit, by their actions, the legitimate
steps and actions and decisions made by the Armed Services Committee?
Mr. President, I think we have not heard the last of this matter. I
think it is just another bungled handling of a situation by certain top
leadership in the U.S. Navy, and I will simply say to Commander Stumpf
that had the information been furnished to us when it was not about
what happened, or that he was even at that Tailgate party 5 years ago,
I would have voted to send Stumpf on through after I took a look and
had a thorough briefing on what the allegations against him were. I do
not think they were that serious.
But the U.S. Navy is the one that caused Commander Stumpf his
problem. His friends are in the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Tailhook Figure Files Suit Over Navy Promotion
A former commander of the Blue Angels squadron, who was
cleared of wrongdoing in the Tailhook scandal, has accused
Navy Secretary John H. Dalton of improperly blocking his
promotion to captain.
In a suit filed Friday in federal court in Alexandria,
Cmdr. Robert E. Stumpf said Dalton bowed to political
pressure from Capitol Hill. Stumpf, stationed at Oceana Naval
Air Station in Virginia Beach, asked that he be given his
promotion as of July 1995.
Stumpf's was one of the most high-profile cases resulting
from the 1991 Tailhook convention of Navy aviators, in which
dozens of women and female officers complained of sexual
harassment. A three-officer panel found that Stumpf left a
Las Vegas hotel suite before a stripper performed oral sex on
an officer.
The suit said Congress approved Stumpf's promotion after
Dalton inadvertently failed to notify Capitol Hill of
Stumpf's Tailhook connection. Dalton, pressured by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, withdrew Stumpf from a promotion
list in December.
The suit said federal law allows a promotion approved by
Congress to be canceled only if an officer ``is mentally,
physically, morally or professionally unqualified.''
____________________