[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.''

                          ____________________