[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3337-S3340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under the previous order, there 
will now be a period for morning business.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent 
to yield to Senator Thurmond for the purpose of introducing bills 
without it cutting into my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator very much.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1672 and S. 1673 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1674 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S3338]]



                            COMMANDER STUMPF

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak on a subject that I have 
spoken before. This is the issue of the promotion of Navy Comdr. Robert 
Stumpf and his promotion to the rank of captain. This promotion has 
been denied by the Armed Services Committee. It was denied because of 
his suspected involvement in inappropriate behavior at the Tailhook 
convention.
  I support the committee's decision to deny the promotion. I have 
spoken on this matter several times. Since my last speech, I have had a 
letter from Commander Stumpf's attorney. The attorney's name is Mr. 
Charles W. Gittins. Mr. Gittins thinks that the facts are the issue 
here. Of course, I disagree. In my mind, the facts are not at issue.
  What do the facts mean? It is the answer to the question that gets 
Commander Stumpf in hot water.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
Mr. Gittins' letter to me.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Williams & Connolly,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 1996.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of my client, 
     Commander Robert E. Stumpf, USN, who was the subject of your 
     March 16, 1996 floor speech in the Senate. I applaud you for 
     asking the five questions relevant to whether Commander 
     Stumpf should be promoted because it is apparent that your 
     colleagues have lost sight of those important attributes in 
     the political infighting over Bob Stumpf's promotion.
       Had you researched the answers to the five questions that 
     you ``asked'', and put the answers as well as the questions 
     in the Congressional Record, I am sure that you would have 
     embarrassed your colleagues with the truth. Moreover, I am 
     sure that if you had researched the answers before you went 
     to the floor to give the speech, your speech would have been 
     one of unequivocal support for Commander Stumpf's promotion.
       Your first question, like the rest, can be answered by 
     reference to the official records of the Court of Inquiry as 
     well as by reference to Commander Stumpf's Official Military 
     Personnel File. Commander Stumpf's record is clearly among 
     the finest in the Navy. Two Navy Captain selection boards now 
     have selected Commander Stumpf for promotion to Captain. In 
     order to do so, the Boards were required to find that 
     Commander Stumpf was among those ``best qualified'' from 
     among those officers who the board found were ``fully 
     qualified.'' Further, Commander Stumpf's performance in 
     combat, illuminated by the many citations for bravery and 
     heroism awarded him by the United States, abundantly proves 
     that the promotion boards were correct in their judgment of 
     Commander Stumpf's performance.
       Your second question, concerning leadership and discipline, 
     are equally well answered by the Navy's official records. All 
     you needed to do was read them. Commander Stumpf was 
     described by senior officers who testified at his Court of 
     Inquiry as ``among the finest leaders that they have had the 
     opportunity to work with.'' In this regard, you may wish to 
     read the testimony of Vice Admiral Kihune and Rear Admiral 
     McGowan, two officers with personal and daily observation of 
     Commander Stumpf in positions of responsibility. You may also 
     wish to read the statement of Captain Dennis Gillespie, USN, 
     Commander Stumpf's commander in combat during Desert Storm. 
     Commander Stumpf's leadership was nowhere more vigorously 
     tested than in combat, where he personally led 9 carrier air 
     wing airstrikes without losing a single aircraft. Discipline? 
     How much discipline does it take to fly a combat aircraft at 
     500 miles an hour into the face of anti-aircraft fire and 
     surface to air missiles while still managing to put bombs on 
     target. I submit that there is no greater demonstration of 
     discipline.
       Does Commander Stumpf set a good example? If not, why was 
     Commander Stumpf chosen to lead the Blue Angels in the first 
     place? The singular purpose of the Blue Angels is to provide 
     a good example of the Navy for public consumption. Perhaps 
     you saw Commander Stumpf perform at the airshow in Iowa. If 
     so, you could not help but be impressed with the example 
     Commander Stumpf sets. The fact that he was returned to 
     command of the Blue Angels by the Navy even after he was 
     subjected to an embarrassing Navy Court of Inquiry speaks 
     volumes about the type example Commander Stumpf sets. 
     Moreover, his press conference following the Court's decision 
     made clear Commander Stumpf's agenda--at that press 
     conference Commander Stumpf said he would thereafter take no 
     more questions about Tailhook. His job was to ``make the Navy 
     look good. And that what [he] intend[ed] to do''
       Your question four is self-evident by Commander Stumpf's 
     performance in combat. How many leaders who flew 22 combat 
     missions can say that they brought back every plane that they 
     started the mission with? Moreover, the junior officers who 
     testified for the government, pursuant to grants of 
     testimonial and transactional immunity, each stated 
     unequivocally that Commander Stumpf was an outstanding role 
     model, one who was universally recognized as superior 
     throughout the Navy and the strike-fighter community, and one 
     they would gladly follow into combat. There simply is no 
     higher praise for a military officer. There has never been 
     any evidence adduced, in the Committee, in the Court of 
     Inquiry, or in subsequent reviews conducted by the Navy or 
     the Committee, that Commander Stumpf is anything but an 
     outstanding role model.
       Finally, Commander Stumpf has over and over throughout his 
     career proven his integrity. Commander Stumpf has been 
     forthcoming about Tailhook and his involvement therein. The 
     Secretary of the Navy personally questioned Commander Stumpf 
     closely on these issues and determined that Commander Stumpf 
     was not culpable for any misconduct, either by him or his 
     subordinates, at Tailhook. Secretary Dalton confirmed that 
     Commander Stumpf was ``appropriately selected for promotion 
     and that he should be promoted.'' Until you raised the 
     question of Commander Stumpf's integrity, there has never 
     been any insinuation that Commander Stumpf was other than 
     forthright and honest in all of his dealings throughout his 
     Navy career. If you have specifics in mind, please feel free 
     to communicate them to me. I will be glad to have Commander 
     Stumpf respond.
       If your five questions are the measuring stick that the 
     Senate intends to follow on all future officer nominations, I 
     applaud your standard. If you intend to apply that standard 
     to Commander Stumpf, it would do you and your colleagues well 
     to actually read the records before you draw conclusions 
     about Commander Stumpf, or any other officer who presents to 
     the Committee or the Senate similarly situated.
       What has diminished the credibility of the Committee and 
     the Senate with the public in Commander Stumpf's case is 
     ignorance of, or intentional lack of familiarity with, the 
     unalterable fact that Commander Stumpf did not conduct 
     himself in any way inappropriately at the 1991 Tailhook 
     Symposium. That is a fact that cannot be ignored, even on the 
     floor of the United States Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles W. Gittins.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am opposed to what Commander Stumpf and his attorney 
are doing for three reasons. First, they want us to believe that this 
is a legal issue. Commander Stumpf seems to have the mistaken notion 
that a promotion to captain in the Navy is an inalienable right.
  He sees the committee erecting a barrier between himself and that 
right. So he has hired a fancy lawyer to reclaim that right under the 
law.
  Well, sadly, I am afraid that Commander Stumpf may be in for a big 
disappointment. As Senator Nunn put it, ``It is well known that 
nomination proceedings are not criminal trials. They are not formal 
evidentiary proceedings.''
  A promotion is not guaranteed under the law. In fact, as we all know, 
it must be earned, and not only earned, but confirmed by the Senate.
  This, Mr. President, brings me to my second point. Each Senator must 
make a subjective judgment about a candidate's character. We have to 
examine the entire record, and then we have to pick and choose.
  Sadly, Commander Stumpf and his lawyer somehow believe that the 
Senate should not sit in judgment of a nominee's character. Two Navy 
captain selection boards and Secretary of the Navy Dalton decided that 
Commander Stumpf should be promoted. End of the story for them. The 
Senate should somehow butt out.
  Again, Senators Nunn and Coats have laid this misguided idea to rest. 
They put it this way: ``The Senate has a constitutional responsibility 
to give advice and consent on military promotions.''
  That is our constitutional duty. We look at the evidence, and we make 
judgment calls. We know it is not an exact science. It is an imperfect 
system, but most of the time it seems to work.
  This brings me to the third source of my concern. Those who are 
pushing the Stumpf promotion want us to think he is a victim of 
political correctness. Mr. President, that is pure, 100 percent, grade-
A, Navy baloney. I happen to believe that Commander Stumpf's problems 
run much deeper than that. They go right to the core of his character. 
His behavior at the 1991 Tailhook convention raises questions about his 
ability to lead.
  Mr. President, I am not holding Commander Stumpf to some arbitrary 
standard dreamed up by this Senator. I am holding him to the military's 
own standards.

[[Page S3339]]

  The military standards are laid out in a document entitled ``Military 
Leadership, Field Manual 22-100.'' Those principles are described on 
pages 5 through 8 of the document. This is an exact quote from the 
document:

       No aspect of leadership is more powerful than setting a 
     good example.

  So, Mr. President, I feel obliged to ask this very simple question: 
Did Commander Stumpf set a good example at Tailhook? A former Naval 
officer, writing in the Washington Times recently, answered that 
question. I want to quote directly from the April 1, 1996, article:

       Officers throughout the Navy--particularly Naval aviators 
     like Commander Stumpf--were well aware that the Tailhook 
     convention had become an increasingly grotesque event before 
     it finally suffered public scrutiny in 1991.
       That Commander Stumpf finds himself having been caught in 
     the fallout is a result of the poor judgment he showed in 
     participating when many of his contemporaries had stopped 
     doing it years before.

  That says it all, Mr. President.
  Commander Stumpf's behavior also raises questions about his 
willingness to accept responsibility. The military leadership manual 
states that a leader must do two things: First, seek responsibility 
and, second, take responsibility for his or her actions. By seeking and 
accepting responsibility, a leader can build trust within his or her 
military unit.
  Clearly, Commander Stumpf is eagerly and aggressively seeking greater 
responsibility. He has an aggressive lobbying campaign going to get 
himself promoted. He is doing a good job of that lobbying.
  Unfortunately, he is not very good at accepting criticism for his 
past mistakes. It seems like he is trying to evade responsibility.
  Commander Stumpf claims he did not witness the really obscene 
behavior at his squadron's Tailhook party. It happened after he left, 
and if he did not see it, he is not responsible, so he claims. 
Commander Stumpf's ship ran aground when he was not on the bridge. That 
is what he wants us to believe. He wants us to believe that his junior 
officers are to blame. In effect, he is saying that.
  Commander Stumpf's reasoning is flawed, and it is inconsistent with 
naval tradition and leadership and the responsibility that is placed on 
leaders in the military manual. The ship's captain is always 
responsible if the ship runs aground.
  When something like this happens, the manual says a leader should 
never try to evade responsibility by blaming others. When a commander 
tries to shift the blame to others, the manual says that undermines 
trust and respect within any military organization. Evading 
responsibility is not the sign of a topnotch military commander.
  When Commander Stumpf first got in hot water, he should have 
acknowledged his mistake and taken corrective action.
  Mr. President, Commander Stumpf needs to face the music and take 
responsibility for his actions.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that part of the manual printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      The Principles of Leadership

       The 11 principles of Army leadership are excellent 
     guidelines and provide the cornerstone for action. They are 
     universal and represent fundamental truths that have stood 
     the test of time. Developed in a 1948 leadership study, the 
     principles were first included in leadership doctrine in 
     1951. Use these principles to assess yourself and develop an 
     action plan to improve your ability to lead. Examples 
     throughout this manual give you ideas of how to apply these 
     principles. Here is an explanation of each of the leadership 
     principles.


                know yourself and seek self-improvement

       To know yourself, you have to understand who you are and to 
     know what your preferences, strengths, and weaknesses are. 
     Knowing yourself allows you to take advantage of your 
     strengths and work to overcome your weaknesses. Seeking self-
     improvement means continually developing your strengths and 
     working on overcoming your weaknesses. This will increase 
     your competence and the confidence your soldiers have in your 
     ability to train and lead.


                be technically and tactically proficient

       You are expected to be technically and tactically 
     proficient at your job. This means that you can accomplish 
     all tasks to standard that are required to accomplish the 
     wartime mission. In addition, you are responsible for 
     training your soldiers to do their jobs and for understudying 
     your leader in the event you must assume those duties. You 
     develop technical and tactical proficiency through a 
     combination of the tactics, techniques, and procedures you 
     learn while attending formal schools (institutional 
     training), in your day-to-day jobs (operational assignments), 
     and from professional reading and personal study (self-
     development).


      seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions

       Leading always involves responsibility. You want 
     subordinates who can handle responsibility and help you 
     perform your mission. Similarly, your leaders want you to 
     take the initiative within their stated intent. When you see 
     a problem or something that needs to be fixed, do not wait 
     for your leader to tell you to act. The example you set, 
     whether positive or negative, helps develop your 
     subordinates. Our warfighting doctrine requires bold leaders 
     at all levels who exercise initiative, are resourceful, and 
     take advantage of opportunities on the battlefield that will 
     lead to victory. When you make mistakes, accept just 
     criticism and take corrective action. You must avoid evading 
     responsibility by placing the blame on someone else. Your 
     objective should be to build trust between you and your 
     leaders as well as between you and those you lead by seeking 
     and accepting responsibility.


                    make sound and timely decisions

       You must be able to rapidly assess situations and make 
     sound decisions. If you delay or try to avoid making a 
     decision, you may cause unnecessary casualties and fail to 
     accomplish the mission. Indecisive leaders create hesitancy, 
     loss of confidence, and confusion. You must be able to 
     anticipate and reason under the most trying conditions and 
     quickly decide what actions to take. Here are some guidelines 
     to help you lead effectively:
       Gather essential information before making your decisions.
       Announce decisions in time for your soldiers to react. Good 
     decisions made at the right time are better than the best 
     decisions made too late.
       Consider the short- and long-term effects of your 
     decisions.


                            set the example

       Your soldiers want and need you to be a role model. This is 
     a heavy responsibility, but you have no choice. No aspect of 
     leadership is more powerful. If you expect courage, 
     competence, candor, commitment, and integrity from your 
     soldiers, you must demonstrate them. Your soldiers will 
     imitate your behavior. You must set high, but attainable, 
     standards, be willing to do what you require of your 
     soldiers, and share dangers and hardships with your soldiers. 
     Your personal example affects your soldiers more than any 
     amount of instruction or form of discipline. You are their 
     role model.


          know your soldiers and look out for their well-being

       You must know and care for your soldiers. It is not enough 
     to know their names and hometowns. You need to understand 
     what makes them ``tick'' and learn what is important to them 
     in life. You need to commit time and effort to listen to and 
     learn about your soldiers. When you show genuine concern for 
     your troops, they trust and respect you as a leader. Telling 
     your subordinates you care about them has no meaning unless 
     they see you demonstrating care. They assume that if you fail 
     to care for them in training, you will put little value on 
     their lives in combat. Although slow to build, trust and 
     respect can be destroyed quickly.
       If your soldiers trust you, they will willingly work to 
     help you accomplish missions. They will never want to let you 
     down. You must care for them by training them for the rigors 
     of combat, taking care of their physical and safety needs 
     when possible, and disciplining and rewarding fairly. The 
     bonding that comes from caring for your soldiers will sustain 
     them and the unit during the stress and chaos of combat.


                    keep your subordinates informed

       American soldiers do best when they know why they are doing 
     something. Individual soldiers have changed the outcome of 
     battle using initiative in the absence of orders. Keeping 
     your subordinates informed helps them make decisions and 
     execute plans within your intent, encourages initiative, 
     improves teamwork, and enhances morale. Your subordinates 
     look for logic in your orders and question things that do not 
     make sense. They expect you to keep them informed and, when 
     possible, explain reasons for your orders.


         develop a sense of responsibility in your subordinates

       Your subordinates will feel a sense of pride and 
     responsibility when they successfully accomplish a new task 
     you have given them. Delegation indicates you trust your 
     subordinates and will make them want even more 
     responsibility. As a leader, you are a teacher and 
     responsible for developing your subordinates. Give them 
     challenges and opportunities you feel they can handle. Give 
     them more responsibility when they show you they are ready. 
     Their initiative will amaze you.


      ensure the task is understood, supervised, and accomplished

       Your soldiers must understand what you expect from them. 
     They need to know what you want done, what the standard is, 
     and

[[Page S3340]]

     when you want it done. They need to know if you want a task 
     accomplished in a specific way. Supervising lets you know if 
     your soldiers understand your orders; it shows your interest 
     in them and in mission accomplishment. Oversupervision causes 
     resentment and undersupervision causes frustration.
       When soldiers are learning new tasks, tell them what you 
     want done and show how you want it done. Let them try. Watch 
     their performance. accept performance that meets your 
     standards; reward performance that exceeds your standards; 
     correct performance that does not meet your standards. 
     Determine the cause of the poor performance and take 
     appropriate action.\1\ When you hold subordinates accountable 
     to you for their performance, they realize they are 
     responsible for accomplishing missions as individuals and as 
     teams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Kenneth H. Blanchard and Keith L. Kettler, ``A Suitable 
     Approach to Leader Development.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             build the team

       Warfighting is a team activity. You must develop a team 
     spirit among your soldiers that motivates them to go 
     willingly and confidently into combat in a quick transition 
     from peace to war. Your soldiers need confidence in your 
     abilities to lead them and in their abilities to perform as 
     members of the team. You must train and cross train your 
     soldiers until they are confident in the team's technical and 
     tactical abilities. Your unit becomes a team only when your 
     soldiers trust and respect you and each other as trained 
     professionals and see the importance of their contributions 
     to the unit.


          employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities

       Your unit has capabilities and limitations. You are 
     responsible to recognize both of these factors. Your soldiers 
     will gain satisfaction from performing tasks that are 
     reasonable and challenging but will be frustrated if tasks 
     are too easy, unrealistic, or unattainable. Although the 
     available resources may constrain the program you would like 
     to implement, you must continually ensure your soldiers' 
     training is demanding. Apply the battle focus process to 
     narrow the training program and reduce the number of vital 
     tasks essential to mission accomplishment. Talk to your 
     leader; decide which tasks are essential to accomplish your 
     warfighting mission and ensure your unit achieves Army 
     standards on those selected. Battle focus is a recognition 
     that a unit cannot attain proficiency to standard on every 
     task, whether due to time or other resource constraints. 
     Do your best in other areas to include using innovative 
     training techniques and relooking the conditions under 
     which the training is being conducted, but do not lower 
     standards simply because your unit appears unable to meet 
     them. Your challenge as a leader is to attain, sustain, 
     and enforce high standards of combat readiness through 
     tough, realistic multiechelon combined arms training 
     designed to develop and challenge each soldier and unit.


                                summary

       The factors and principles of leadership will help you 
     accomplish missions and care for soldiers. They are the 
     foundation for leadership action.
       The factors of leadership are always present and affect 
     what you should do and when you should do it. Soldiers should 
     not all be led in the same way. You must correctly assess 
     soldiers' competence, commitment, and motivation so that you 
     can take the right leadership actions. As a leader, you must 
     know who you are, what you know, and what you can do so that 
     you can discipline yourself and lead soldiers effectively. 
     Every leadership situation is unique. What worked in one 
     situation may not work in another. You must be able to look 
     at every situation and determine what action to take. You 
     influence by what you say, write, and, most importantly, do. 
     What and how you communicate will either strengthen or weaken 
     the relationship between you and your subordinates.
       The principles of leadership were developed by leaders many 
     years ago to train and develop their subordinates. The 
     principles have stood the test of time and the foremost 
     test--the battlefield. Use the principles to assess how you 
     measure up in each area and then develop a plan to improve 
     your ability to lead soldiers.

  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

                          ____________________