[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 70 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5299-S5301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADM. MIKE BOORDA
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is with a very heavy heart and a
profound sadness that I take the floor today to pay tribute to a good
friend, Adm. Mike Boorda. As my colleagues know, Admiral Boorda
apparently took his life yesterday near his home on the grounds of the
Washington Navy Yard.
Mike Boorda was an inspiration to those of us who care about military
matters and who strive to improve the quality of life of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines. He was also an inspiration to our
enlisted ranks, to whom he demonstrated by example that hard work,
dedication and commitment can pay off. My dad was a naval aviator in
World War II. Like my dad, Mike Boorda was a Mustang, he was an
enlisted man who rose from the enlisted ranks to become an officer. So
I had a special appreciation for what Mike Boorda did. His career is a
modern day success story. He was the first enlisted man to rise up
through the ranks, become an officer, and become the Chief of Naval
Operations. He was the first one in the history of America. From his
enlistment in the U.S. Navy in 1956 through his service as Chief of
Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Boorda epitomized our Nation's finest. He
was truly a remarkable man.
Many of my colleagues have described Admiral Boorda's distinguished
professional history. It is a career rich in diversity, long on
accomplishment.
I ask unanimous consent at this point that Admiral Boorda's
curriculum vitae be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows.
Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations
Admiral Boorda, born in South Bend, Indiana, in November
1939, enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1956. He attained the rate
of petty officer first class, serving at a number of
commands, primarily in aviation. His last two enlisted
assignments were in Attack
[[Page S5300]]
Squadron 144 and Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 11.
He was selected for commissioning under the Integration
Program in 1962.
Following Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode
Island, and commissioning in August 1962, Admiral Boorda
served aboard U.S.S. Porterfield (DD 682) as Combat
Information Center Officer. He attended Naval Destroyer
School in Newport and in 1964 was assigned as Weapons
Officer, U.S.S. John R. Craig (DD 885). His next tour was as
Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Parrot (MSC 197).
Admiral Boorda's first shore tour was as a weapons
instructor at Naval Destroyer School in Newport. In 1971,
after attending the U.S. Naval War College and also earning a
bachelor of arts degree from the University of Rhode Island,
he assumed duties as Executive Officer, U.S.S. Brooke (DEG
1). That tour was followed by a short period at the
University of Oklahoma and an assignment as Head, Surface
Lieutenant Commander Assignments/Assistant for Captain
Detailing in the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Washington, D.C.
From 1975 to 1977, Admiral Boorda commanded the U.S.S.
Farragut (DDG 37). He was next assigned as Executive
Assistant to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, D.C. He
relieved the civilian presidential appointee in that
position, remaining until 1981, when he took command of
Destroyer Squadron Twenty-two.
In 1983 and 1984, he served as Executive Assistant to the
Chief of Naval Personnel/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Manpower, Personnel and Training. In December 1984, he
assumed his first flag officer assignment as Executive
Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, remaining until
July 1986.
His next assignment was Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group
Eight in Norfolk, Virginia; he served as a Carrier Battle
Group Commander embarked on U.S.S. Saratoga (CV 60), and also
as Commander, Battle Force Sixth Fleet in 1987.
In August 1988, Admiral Boorda became Chief of Naval
Personnel/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower,
Personnel and Training. In November 1991 he received his
fourth star and in December 1991, became Commander in Chief,
Allied Forces Southern Europe (Naples, Italy) and Commander
in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (London, England). As
CINCSOUTH, Admiral Boorda was in command of all NATO forces
engaged in operations enforcing U.N. sanctions against the
warring factions in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
On 1 February 1993, while serving as Commander in Chief,
Admiral Boorda assumed duty as Commander, Joint Task Force
Provide Promise, responsible for the supply of humanitarian
relief to Bosnia-Herzegovina via air-land and air-drop
missions and for troops contributing to the U.N. mission
throughout the Balkans.
Admiral Boorda's military awards include the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal
(three awards), the Legion of Merit (three awards), the
Meritorious Service Medal (two awards) and a number of other
personal and campaign awards.
On April 23, 1994, Admiral Boorda became the 25th Chief of
Naval Operations.
Admiral Boorda is married to the former Bettie Moran. They
have four children and nine grandchildren; two sons and one
daughter-in-law are naval officers.
Mr. SMITH. Rather than recite his vast and substantial
accomplishments, I want to talk for a moment about the Mike Boorda that
I knew. From the first time I met Adm. Mike Boorda, I knew he was
something special. My first impressions were that he was an extremely
intelligent, forthright, and principled man. He would tell it like it
is. He pulled no punches. He had a passion for the Navy, a real
passion. He had a passion for promoting the well-being of U.S. service
men and women and for defending the interests of our Nation. When Mike
Boorda told you something, he looked you in the eye and he spoke from
the heart. You could take it to the bank. He was a man of his word. He
was a man of honor. He was a man of great courage.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to
work very closely with Admiral Boorda. We frequently spoke on the
phone. We met in hearings and private meetings, over dinner or just in
passing. We also spent a great deal of time together during the base
closure process.
No one took the challenge of downsizing our infrastructure more
seriously than Mike Boorda. No one fought harder to preserve essential
naval capabilities. Sometimes Mike Boorda may not have agreed with the
decisions that he was asked to carry out, but, like any good soldier,
he carried them out. He never complained.
That commitment to national security and to our naval-industrial base
is well known in New Hampshire. Last Spring, when en route to Bosnia,
Mike Boorda diverted his scheduled trip so that he could spend a few
hours touring the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard with the Base Closure
Commission, who was there to look at whether or not we should close our
shipyard. I remember him calling me saying, ``Senator, do you need me
there?'' I said, ``Admiral, I know you are a busy man, but the answer
is yes, the Base Closure Commission needs to hear from you directly and
personally that this shipyard is critical to the future of our Navy.''
He said, ``I will be there,'' and he was. And it made a very profound
and lasting impact on the people of the Granite State. We owe him a
lot, an awful lot.
It made a direct impact on the members of the Base Closure Commission
whom he looked in the eye and said, ``Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot
take this base away from me. I need it.''
Even today, members will tell you that that had an impact on their
decision. He looked them in the eye, and he told them the Navy needed
this shipyard. He spoke from the heart, he spoke the truth, and they
knew it.
Those who had the privilege to know Mike Boorda personally, to work
with him professionally, or to merely observe him in action, know that
he was unique. He had that rare ability to communicate volumes through
a few carefully chosen words. He was not one to dominate a conversation
or to chew your ear off. He had few words to say. But when he said
them, you knew exactly where he was coming from, and he chose them very
carefully.
He had the ability to transcend politics and parochialism by framing
issues in their appropriate context.
Whether serving a President Bush or a President Clinton, he was still
Adm. Mike Boorda, naval officer, and a damned good one, Mr. President.
He had the ability to command respect, discipline and excellence
through his own example. He was a leader among leaders. The Navy will
miss him, the country will miss him, his family will miss him, and I
will miss him. I want to offer my deepest sympathies to his wife,
Bettie, and their four children.
There is another aspect of Mike Boorda that I want to emphasize. In
the Armed Services Committee, former Chairman Nunn and Chairman
Thurmond have always asked the officers who come to testify to speak
from their heart, tell how they feel about an issue and not be bound by
a policy that they may or may not disagree with. Mike Boorda lived up
to that commitment, and always provided the Senate with honest, candid
testimony.
Amidst the grief and sorrow of this incident, I am compelled to offer
some personal observations and concerns regarding recent events in the
Navy that may or may not have had some relationship to this tragedy.
But I want to express them because I feel them deeply, and I think they
need to be said.
I have never been one to question the responsibility of our news
media to report on stories of national interest, nor have I sought to
impugn the motives of news organizations seeking to root out the truth,
and I am not doing that now. But it seems to me that the nature of news
coverage and reporting is changing these days, I fear, for the worse.
Clearly, the Navy has had some difficult problems over the past few
years. Some of these were institutional in nature, others were isolated
incidents and yet others were just plain bad judgment. These are not
the norm, Mr. President, but we hear about them just the same. For
instance, we hear about the problems at the Naval Academy, but we do
not hear about the thousands of young men and women who go through that
Academy, who make it, become great officers, and sacrifice their lives
for the country. We do not hear a lot about that.
The press has a responsibility to report on current events in a
balanced and impartial manner. For the most part, I believe that has
been the case. But at some point, there exists a line where responsible
journalism gives way to excessive badgering. At some point, the
continuing quest for a story can give way to relentless, unwarranted
persecution.
This is a tough town, Mr. President, as you well know. This town can
consume people. There is a lot of pressure--pressure on families,
pressure on individuals, pressure to get the job done. It is not a
report to work at 9 o'clock and go home at 5 town. Admiral Boorda knew
that, and when a crisis erupted, he was on the job, night or
[[Page S5301]]
day, whenever necessary. He never questioned that.
I want to make it clear, I am not criticizing the media or indicating
their actions had a role in this incident. History will have to judge
that. But I am suggesting that perhaps it is time that we all--
ourselves as well as the media--step back and take a hard look at the
course of events that led up to yesterday's tragedy. Perhaps it is time
to do a little soul searching to make sure things stay in the right
perspective and to ensure that ethics, morality and fairness are not
being undermined in the never-ending quest for a ``story.'' Sometimes
the truth might be more important than the story.
As I reflect upon this terrible, terrible tragedy to my friend, I
cannot help but wonder about the seeming lack of balance in the media's
reporting of Navy events in recent years. All we ever hear about are
the problems--Tailhook, Academy cheating scandals, F-14 crashes, sexual
harassment. Certainly these are newsworthy items, and they merit
coverage and accountability.
But what about the positive developments? What about the enormous
progress that the Navy has made in improving the opportunities
available to women and minorities in the ranks? What about Admiral
Boorda's ``Seaman to Admiral'' program, which he designed to give
enlisted personnel the opportunity to aspire to higher achievement,
like my father did and like Admiral Boorda did. What about Admiral
Boorda's efforts as Chief of Naval Personnel and as CNO to enhance the
pay, benefits and quality of life for Navy personnel and their
families? How much coverage has been devoted to these tremendous
successes in the U.S. Navy; indeed, in the military as a whole? How
much praise was heaped on Mike Boorda for his vigorous personal efforts
on these issues? Sadly, and in my view, unfairly, not enough.
Let me make one other observation on Mike Boorda. It is personal, but
I hope that Mike's family understands me saying this.
I had an occasion to visit his home about 6 weeks ago. Senator Lott
and myself and our wives had dinner with Admiral Boorda and his wife.
On the mantel is a picture of the current Pope with one of Mike
Boorda's sons, who is severely handicapped. What a beautiful picture
that was of the Pope laying his hand on Admiral Boorda's son. He was so
proud of that.
I said, ``Mike, are you Catholic?''
He said, ``No, but perhaps I ought to be, because the Pope was
wonderful, and I've never forgotten it.''
It takes a pretty special person to raise a son like that. Did the
press report about that? I don't think so. You probably will not read
anything about that in Newsweek.
Mr. President, it seems to me we need to stop this trend of
relentless negative coverage and encourage more balance and
objectivity. It seems to me that distinguished military personnel, such
as Mike Boorda, should have their careers and activities judged in
total, not selectively. It seems to me that Mike Boorda should be
remembered for his outstanding service to our Nation, for his personal
initiatives to enhance the military capabilities and quality of life
for our naval personnel, rather than for some select institutional
challenges that he inherited or fought to correct, or some other
isolated occurrence.
Sadly, this has not been the case. I cannot help but wonder how much
of an effect the relentless, often excessive, media hounding of Mike
Boorda and the institution he loved so much had on him. I know for a
fact it did concern him greatly because we talked about it. We talked
about it a lot.
Perhaps it had no effect, perhaps it had a very direct effect. We
will never know. But either way, we owe it to Mike Boorda, and we owe
it to his family to search deep within this media and political culture
here in Washington and, if possible, to find ways to prevent a
recurrence of this tragedy.
About 6 days ago, I had my last conversation with Mike Boorda, and I
remember being frustrated because he was busy that day and he had not
gotten around to returning my call, which he always did. It was just
maybe 4 or 5 hours after I placed the call when he apologized and said
he had been in meeting after meeting and was not able to get back to me
sooner.
I relayed a problem to him that I was having on an issue with one of
his officers. He said, ``Senator, as I recall, the officer that you're
referring to is a one-star; is that correct?''
I said, ``Yes, sir, that is correct. It is a one-star admiral.''
He said, ``Well, I'm a four-star, and I'll take care of it.''
He did. Mike Boorda was a man of his word.
Mr. President, on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, who owe Mike
Boorda a great deal for saving their shipyard, I bid farewell to a good
friend, a great naval officer, and I offer his family my deepest and
sincere condolences.
Mike, rest in peace. You deserve it.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from
New Hampshire, Senator Smith, for the excellent tribute he has paid to
Adm. Mike Boorda, whom we all held in such high esteem.
____________________