[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.
____________________