[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2846-S2847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NAVAL PROMOTIONS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I spoke in support of the
Senate Armed Services Committee not granting promotion to Comdr. Robert
Stumpf. Last Thursday night I had an opportunity to listen to Senator
Coats, Senator Byrd, and Senator Nunn speak on the same subject. I
agree with everything they said. I will speak, once again, on that same
subject but put it in a little broader context.
Before I do that, there was, last Thursday, in the Washington Post
this article about Commander Stumpf and the Navy, pushing for his
promotion to be granted again. I suppose that means it will come back
to the Senate Armed Services Committee sometime in the future.
If people wonder why this might not be granted, I read a paragraph
from this article. It talks about the Tailhook conference 4 years ago
in Nevada. It talks about the behavior at the Tailhook convention in
September 1991. It drew scrutiny on at least two accounts about the
behavior of Commander Stumpf. It says he was present in a hotel room
hosted by his squadron where two strippers performed, although he left
the room before one of the women engaged in a sex act with another
airman. Now, he avoids all responsibility for that. I assume that is
the moral of the story, why it should not be considered in whether or
not he gets a promotion.
It would be similar if I had a Christmas party for my staff and I
hired a couple of strippers, and before they did their act, before
other things would happen, I leave the party and claim no
responsibility for that. Commander Stumpf was the commander. It was his
group that was involved. He thinks he can avoid responsibility for what
goes on there. I think not.
But also for the entire Navy, I point out that when you have that
sort of convention, it is under the auspice of the U.S. military, and
we have two strippers hired and a sex act performed with an airman, I
remind the Navy--and I say this because farming is my background and my
son operates our family farm--that is the way animals operate. Animals
operate that way. Human beings, in their interaction with people of
opposite sex, do it with love and with concern and of course with the
goals that every act of love has. That is what separates human beings
from animals. I suggest to the Navy that they act like human beings and
not like animals.
I want to put this whole thing in a different context because the
latest tremors concern the future career of this Navy Commander, Robert
Stumpf. Commander Stumpf's promotion to the rank of captain has been
blocked, and properly so. The committee remains opposed to the
promotion because Commander Stumpf is suspected of inappropriate
behavior, as I described at this Tailhook convention.
Last week, under intense pressure and lobbying, the committee
reexamined the promotion one more time, and the outcome was sustained.
Commander Stumpf is off the promotion list and will stay off. I said 2
weeks ago that I support the committee's action, and I support their
reconsideration by taking no action.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, I do not think we have heard the last
from Commander Stumpf. A recent report in the Washington Times suggests
that Commander Stumpf's name will be on the 1997 captain's promotion
list. Now the good commander is suing Secretary of the Navy Dalton for
helping the Senate to improperly block his promotion.
Commander Stumpf's predicament is a sign of a much bigger problem. It
is the ``problem of naval leadership,'' as one naval aviator put it
recently. The Navy's leadership problem neither begins nor ends with
Commander Stumpf. The root cause of the problem may be much higher up
in the chain of command. I believe the Navy's leadership problem may
lie at the very top, with people like Secretary Dalton and the Chief of
Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy Boorda.
Mr. Dalton and Admiral Boorda should have been flagged--just like
Commander Stumpf was--when their promotions came up here to be at these
highest ranks. Unresolved issues in their past raise questions about
their integrity and their ability to lead the Navy. The adverse
information in their background should have been exposed to public
scrutiny and debated, but that did not happen.
Surely these troublesome facts lay buried in Government files
somewhere during the confirmation process. We were sleeping at the
switch when they were slipped quietly through the Senate confirmation
net. Mr. President, we had no reason to ask questions about Mr. Dalton.
Mr. Dalton was presented to the Senate as a financial wizard with
extensive business and managerial experience. He got a green light
instead of a red warning flag that his wizardry deserved.
Mr. Dalton was confirmed on July 21, 1993. Exactly 1 year later, the
damaging information in Mr. Dalton's background began leaking into the
public domain. The New York Times ran a front-page story on July 22nd,
1994. It was written by Mr. Jeff Gerth. This is how it began:
When President Clinton announced that he had picked John H.
Dalton to be Secretary of the Navy, he praised the nominee's
true leadership ability as a Texas businessman.
As Mr. Gerth pointed out, ``There was a part of Mr. Dalton's
background that most Senators were unaware of.''
His leadership was not advertised. We did not know he was deeply
involved in the management of at least two failed savings and loan
institutions. Mr. Dalton's S&L's were bailed out at the cost to the
taxpayers of $100 million.
As president of one S&L institution, Mr. Dalton was threatened with a
suit by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for violating State
and Federal laws and for gross negligence. The institution's insurance
companies had to pay $3.8 million to settle a civil suit.
Now, Mr. President, this is very damaging information, I believe. It
raises questions about the Secretary's integrity and his ability to
lead the Navy. How did he skate right through confirmation without red
warning flags? Commander Stumpf got the flag treatment for the big
question marks in his file, and rightly so. Why did Mr. Dalton not get
flagged and confronted?
We had an identical experience with Admiral Boorda's nomination. He,
too, slipped right through the confirmation net. Admiral Boorda should
have been flagged. Admiral Boorda was confirmed on April 1, 1994. About
2 months later I picked up a newspaper and saw this headline, ``Court
Says Navy Brass Shielded Official's Son: Lenient Treatment is the
Latest Plight in the System.'' That is a headline. This report appeared
in the Washington Post June
[[Page S2847]]
15, 1994. It was written by Mr. Barton Gellman.
Mr. Gellman's report went on to say, ``Some of those criticized by
the court in the case remain in important posts. Among them is Admiral
Boorda.'' That really bothered me, so I got the court document and read
it. I was truly dismayed by what I saw--a bunch of senior naval
officers behaving in dishonest ways. So I came to the floor of this
body, and on June 28, 1994, spoke on this subject. If the people are
wondering what I spoke about a year ago on this subject, they can find
it in the Congressional Record S7744 to S7745. Those are the pages.
My concern about Admiral Boorda's character comes directly from that
military court document. Specifically, an opinion by the United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review in the case of the United
States versus Chad E. Kelly, U.S. Navy. The document is dated June 13,
1994.
This was a clear-cut case of command influence and abuse of command
authority.
The court document clearly indicates that Admiral Boorda may have
interfered with a criminal investigation. Now, Admiral Boorda claims he
was unaware of the suspect's criminal activities when he had him
transferred to his own headquarters. That may be. The suspect was a
low-ranking enlisted man who happened to be Navy Secretary Garrett's
son. He was suspected of drug use, larceny, credit card fraud, receipt
of stolen property, and lying under oath. That is very heavy stuff.
Once Admiral Boorda realized criminal behavior was involved, Garrett
should have been ordered back to the scene of the crime--consistent
with common Navy practice. But that did not happen. Why not?
Now, Mr. President, this brings me back to Commander Stumpf. We
should not be surprised, when Commander Stumpf sets a bad example. A
follower likes to imitate a leader's behavior. He is not blind. He sees
the big boys abusing the system, doing bad things, and getting rewarded
for it. So he figures it should be OK for him to do it as well.
No aspect of leadership is more powerful than setting a good example.
If the Secretary and Chief of Naval Operations expect integrity,
discipline, courage, and competence from their followers, then they
must demonstrate those very same qualities themselves. Herein lies the
crux of the Navy leadership problem.
Mr. Dalton and Admiral Boorda demand excellence from Commander
Stumpf, but failed to deliver it themselves. ``Flagging'' is good for
junior officers, but somehow not for admirals and above. That attitude
does not sit well with junior officers. The big boys are asking their
troops to do something they are unwilling to do themselves, and that
just does not work.
So we cannot begin to address shortcomings in the leadership at
Commander Stumpf's level until those at the top, like Mr. Dalton and
Admiral Boorda, set an example of excellence in their personal
behavior.
I suggest, once again, that as far as what went on at the Tailhook
scandal, I want to remind the Navy that those things are things that
are done in the animal kingdom, and human beings should not be involved
in that sort of sexual behavior.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the
Senator from California.
____________________