Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Only briefly.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss today the amendment I have offered that I put forward at the desk and will, at the appropriate time, be calling for the yeas and nays on that. I have discussed my amendment with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. And after my staff had briefings with the Pentagon, I decided the privacy of our new recruits, by mandating separate barracks, was extremely important and that this debate was necessary and needed at this point in time. Mr. President, my amendment is common sense. It simply requires separate barracks for male and female recruits during basic training. Further, the amendment protects the privacy of recruits by limiting access to barracks after hours to those of the same gender. I might note for the Senators that the House has considered much stronger language, and actually enacted in their bill, in the DOD authorization, the separation of genders during basic training. But we fall far short of that. This is just about barracks and housing during basic training. I believe this is a sensible step in restoring privacy and dignity to the military basic training experience and will allow our young recruits to focus on the serious tasks before them. This amendment helps to uphold the military standards of behavior and improves the quality of life for military members and spouses left at home while a loved one completes basic training. The amendment will help train instructors to instill the basic core values of discipline, teamwork, unit cohesion, and values that will ultimately benefit the individual, the family, and the military. By adopting this amendment, we codify a unanimous recommendation of the bipartisan Kassebaum-Baker commission. The Kassebaum-Baker Commission interviewed 2,000 recruits, 2,000 recruits, and their supervisors and found serious problems. Let me just articulate a few of them. The commission recognized that sexual relations take place inside of barracks where young men and women live together. Moral and unit cohesion were negatively affected. Thus, the commission recommended that male and female recruits sleep in separate barracks. Talk about common sense, that seems to be it. To avoid cries that the cost is prohibitive, the Kassebaum Commission completed an analysis of the current structures at training installations which showed that the cost of this amendment is marginal. Mr. President, I will read the section of the Kassebaum Commission that says just that, quoting from page 15 of the study of the Kassebaum Commission: The committee has reviewed the layout and surge numbers of the training installation and believes this change can be accomplished at marginal cost, if any. Available barracks exist and have already been converted to accommodate both male recruits. Thus, there are no physical constraints to having men and women recruits housed separately during basic training. Existing structures can be used. The Kassebaum panel was stunned to discover--and this is a direct quote--``high frequency'' of sexual relations during basic training between male and female recruits in all branches of the services. High frequency. Now, if you think about this, if you put young male and female recruits around the age of 18 in close proximity, in the same quarters, I think there is a possibility that a high frequency of this may happen. The amendment that I put forward simply says we should have separate barracks. It doesn't even go to wanting separate training. It says separate ``barracks,'' to maybe reduce some of these incidents. The same report said ``some drill sergeants complained to the panel about the large amount of time they were spending investigating or disciplining male and female misconduct. It was found that the problem is exacerbated in mixed-gender barracks. This is after interviewing 2,000 recruits and sergeants. It is exacerbated in mixed-gender barracks, especially where men and women live on the same floor. Just think about it again, in common-sense terms. Doesn't this just make sense that you will have more problems if you have mixed genders on same floor in the same barracks, and that you will then have to deal with that in basic training? Listen to this. At one location at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, the panel was told that male and female fraternization was so frequent that drill instructors had to take the doors off of the barracks rooms so they could maintain order inside. It was that frequent. They had to take the doors off. Secretary Cohen gave the services an opportunity to respond to the Kassebaum recommendations. Other than the marines, God bless 'em, they all came back and disagreed with the recommendation to establish separate living barracks. Despite this, I believe that there is no reason why male and female recruits should be sleeping on the same floors. This makes no sense. I put it in personal terms, if I could, for my colleagues. Think about their daughters, if they are going into the military. I have two young daughters. What if they were going in. Would you feel safer and better about their security and about this issue of fraternization if, during basic training, they are in separate facilities, or would you feel better and safer about it if they are on the same floor with different genders? Just think about that for half a second. Wouldn't you feel a lot better about it if they are in separate barracks so that people can watch a little closer than if they are on the same floor with other recruits and you already have these instances taking place? This is a common-sense proposal with minimal, if any, cost. This is about national security and ensuring our recruits make up the best, most disciplined force in the world. Just last month, we learned that five instructors at the Navy's boot camp have been accused of sexual misconduct and improper relations with women recruits. This is the Navy, not the Army; this is the Navy. One of the instructors at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, a 30-year-old, was arrested on April 30 on charges of having an improper sexual relationship with an 18- year-old female recruit. I want to read some of the press account that is out of this, from the Chicago Sun Times, June 6, 1998. A Navy petty officer was found guilty of sexual misconduct with female recruits and making false statements to Navy officers in a court-martial Friday at the Great Lakes Naval Base. After deliberating about 90 minutes, [90 minutes, not long.] a three-member jury made up of two male Navy officers and one female enlisted sailor found Machinists Mate 1st Class Gregg Peterson guilty of eight of nine charges against him. They quoted in this article several of the sailors, some of the women sailors. One--and I will not give her name because I don't think that is appropriate--said she cried as the jury presided and read its decision of guilty. She said ``I feel like I can breathe again now.'' She walked out of the Navy headquarters building where the court- marital was held. She stated-- this is sad--``I didn't join the Navy to be laughed at.'' She had stated that this particular officer that was found guilty had stated lewd things towards her. Another recruit had said this person that was found guilty intimated to her he wanted to have sex with her, and she stated, ``I'll feel better when he is punished. He was in charge of the way he made us feel.'' Two other recruits testified they had sex with the same person that was found guilty after he threw a mattress on the floor in the barracks and told them to undress. This is a superior position telling these recruits to do this. This is one of the recruits who said, ``The Navy is trying to cover up the fact that they let this guy wander through the barracks, intimidating recruits into having sex with them.'' That is a horror story for them. And another who had sex with this particular person found guilty said she couldn't have fought him off if she tried. What is that about? This is terrible. This is disgusting that this took place at the Navy basic training facility, and you have several recruits testifying of what this person in a senior position forced them to do. Our amendment is aimed at trying to get just at that, separate barracks. You cannot have a person of the other gender in the facility where the people of the opposite gender are except on emergency cases. What are we letting them do, just parade around and throw mattresses on the floor? He was court-martialled for this and found guilty of eight of nine charges. This is the press account from June 6th after the court-martial report came back. My goodness. Now, what sort of solace, if you are an 18-year-old and your family is considering letting you go into the military service and you want to go into the military service and you are a female, and you are reading these sort of stories, what goes through your mind at that time? Do you want to go into the military then? Is this going to be an inhibition if you think you want to be a part of the Navy, of the proud tradition of the Navy, of the Army? You want to be part of that unit, but then you read this stuff about guys parading around in barracks and throwing mattresses on the floor. What does that do? And what does it do to the family? What does the family think about in that case? A study of female recruits out last November found them particularly susceptible to unwanted pregnancies and assaults. The study found that ``to many young female recruits, the basic training experience can be uniquely stressful with individuals often experiencing feelings of loneliness and isolation and the possibility that some individuals would turn to sexual relationships as a means of coping with the stress is great.'' Let's go to another case we are all familiar with. We all remember what went on at the Aberdeen Proving Ground between instructor and trainee last year--rape and sex between drill instructors and trainees. Aberdeen is an example of what can happen in the pressurized training environment without proper supervision. Remember, basic trainees are even more susceptible, even more susceptible. We must do what we can to remove these pressures. Again, I plead with my colleagues, think of your own 18-year-old daughters going into the military, or others that would be considering this. Is this really the sort of situation we want to put them in, that we are forcing them to go into, that we force them, if they want to be a part of the military. That is what they have to do; this is where they have to sleep. I recognize that the services are already taking steps to ensure security and privacy of the current male and female living arrangements and I applaud the services for taking these steps. My amendment allows time for the services to accomplish the transition to separate barracks, which is where they have to get. It really is where they have to get. It sets October 1, 2001, as the effective date. If an installation has insufficient facilities, the amendment allows recruits to be housed in separate barrack floors with the proper access restrictions until 2001. We are giving the military some lead time to build into this, to deal with this situation, and they are trying to deal with it. The bottom line is this: The primary function of the basic training is to properly induce young trainees into the Armed Forces, with minimal distractions. They are there to learn the skills that spell success or failure on the battlefield. I urge you to support Secretary Cohen's goal of ``a basic training system which provides gender privacy and dignity and safe, secure living conditions.'' Safe, secure, and separate barracks is the best way to ensure a well-trained and disciplined force. At a minimum, I believe that we owe that to these recruits and their families. Mr. President, I just ask you to think about this for a little while, because this really makes sense. I know the military is trying to get accomplish what we have mandated them to do on the mixed-gender training, and they are trying to do it in the close quarters that we have, and these have been the ways they have received pressure. My goodness, I say to Senators, we have to look at the facts and what is taking place, ask ourselves a bit of common sense. These young 18- year-old men and women are in close quarters, in a pressurized situation at basic training. What do you think is going to happen in this situation if you provide a situation where they are in the same barracks and you have a common area for them to go into, or you have instructors that are superior in age and position and they are able to go into the same facilities? The military is saying, ``Look, we are trying to divide and partition the buildings, so that on the same floor you are going to have a plywood petition, and hopefully we will get to a permanent petition between the two genders on the floor.'' But you are still going to have common areas where the two can mix. Plus, you can still have and will still have your instructors going into the area of the opposite sex and being there. You are going to have, unfortunately, that situation like just happened up in the Navy basic training facility, if that occurs. If we leave the situation the way it is today, that is going to occur. Plus, you are still mixing a situation that just doesn't apply to us in common sense, if we think about it. This is going to lead to the problems we have. I also want to add a personal Kansas story into this. My office in Kansas--I have not been a Senator a long time, but we regularly get requests from female recruits who get pregnant while in basic training, and they ask for discharges. One lady who contacted my office had a nervous breakdown. She has since separated from the Navy. I will not say her name; that would be inappropriate. But my note to colleagues is that everybody loses in this deal. Everybody loses in this deal. The Navy loses a highly qualified, motivated recruit, who falls into a pressurized environment and then gets demoralized and has a nervous breakdown. This is a Kansas example I have, and only one. I have multiple ones that come into my office in Kansas. I am sure others have them, too. Check your records, check your services, and what you are being contacted about in your State. How many of you have the same situation--being contacted by female recruits who want out of the military because they have unwarranted sexual advances? My goodness, the Navy loses, we lose, and this particular recruit was demoralized and loses as well. This makes no sense. I want to go through the report, if I may, of the Kassebaum commission. This is something I respect, coming from Nancy Kassebaum Baker from my home State of Kansas, who is as level-headed a person as you will ever find anywhere in the world. She is a wonderful lady. She is very thoughtful, and she doesn't go around tilting at different things and doesn't follow wildly different philosophies. She looks at things and applies a good Kansas common sense to it. I think she epitomizes that sense of common sense. A lot of my colleagues will remember her, and they know what I am saying is true. This is her commission's report: The committee observed that integrated housing is contributing to a higher rate of disciplinary problems. Both recruits and trainers, consequently, are distracted from their training objectives . . .. What is our objective in basic training but to train? They are being distracted because of disciplinary problems they are having. This is a quote from the commission report on December 16, 1997. I want to show you a chart of this commission in a little bit. It was appointed by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Cohen, and from the President, and they came out with these unanimous recommendations. It was bipartisan, and there were a number of people in this commission who served in the military themselves. This is a group that has considered it. Here is another quote from congressional testimony: We have reviewed the barracks structure at the training installations and believe that this can be achieved at minimal cost. I am sensitive to the cost issue because we are not funding the military sufficiently. I have military bases in my State that are important and are not being funded sufficiently. They have studied this thoroughly. They said we can do this at minimal, if any, cost. In my amendment, we do authorize money to be able to be used to do this. I think even if you are talking about recruits coming in, you have to provide some solace to the families that we are going to separate and do everything we can--and right now we are not--to prevent this sort of situation from happening. We still provide an authorization in the amendment that I have, and we can deal with the appropriation on another day. This is the Army inspector general's special inspection from July 22, 1997: Many of the first sergeants interviewed indicated that trainee-trainee consensual sex occurred quite often, but felt the chain of command was reluctant to enforce the installation regulation. To back up this even with my staff's investigation, the military requested--and they want to try to make this situation work--and they have been pushing our office and saying, ``Don't do this.'' They said, ``Send a couple of your staff members to Fort Jackson to look at the situation.'' We did. I had two staff members go there. They went and talked with some of the recruits, who told them about instances of sexual activity happening in the telephone booth and in the same barracks where you have mixed genders involved, and they told them how this was done, how the pressure is and the environment and how this occurs. So rather than allaying my fears, which is what I hoped would happen, it just heightened them. Here we had my staff members being told by recruits, ``Well, yes, this goes on. Here is how it happens in separate facilities.'' And we were shown how the barrier is built between the male and female genders on the same floor, with a piece of plywood put up and a Radio Shack alarm. Well, you are still putting males and females in close proximity, in common areas. My staff was supposed to be there being assured this was not going on, but we got just the opposite report of what was taking place. This is the CRS issue brief of May 14, 1998. It is the third different study looking at this particular issue: At a number of Army facilities, investigations and court marshals are underway, or have been completed, concerning harassment, fraternization, assault and rape. So I have the Kassebaum commission, the Army inspector general, and now the CRS issue brief. This isn't just one study; this is the third one. It is the same point that it makes. Some of the people who have supported the military for a long time, the American Legion, submitted a report to the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel on March 17. It said: The American Legion advocates separate barracks for male and female recruits at basic training facilities. This is also an American Legion statement: The mission in combat is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or close combat. Separate gender living conditions will better prepare the Armed Forces to fulfill this mission. That is what the military is about, Mr. President. This is the overall commission's unanimous recommendation for separate barracks. Mr. President, I hope we can have a direct vote on this. I think we should have separate training for male and female, like what the House passed. I know a number of my colleagues actually support that as well--separate training altogether. We decided, let's take a narrower approach. Let's go on this narrower issue here, because this one I don't see how you disagree with. Some of my colleagues will argue, and say, ``Well, let's wait for another commission report. We have a congressional commission.'' Yes; we have a congressional commission. It has been appointed. It has a much broader requirement than just the issue of separate gender relations. Plus, I would point out again to you, now we are another year into the future. We are going to be on a second commission. We already have one conducted and led by a Member of this body, a highly respected Member of this body, who unanimously reported back. Now we are going to wait another year. How many more of these situations like we had take place in the Navy are we going to have in the interim? How many more letters or contacts am I going to get by constituents in Kansas saying they had nervous breakdowns because of this situation? How many more of these will it take when we will not respond to common sense? This is just common sense. I have deep respect for my colleagues who view this differently. Senator Kempthorne and his committee has looked at this. But I don't think this makes any sense of where we are. I think this is a very narrow approach. It isn't about basic training; it is just about barracks. We can do it at minimal cost. If not, we have the authorization here to deal with this. I plead with my colleagues that we do it. I hope we take a different tack on this.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Only for that, and I am not yielding the floor. The understanding is, I am not yielding the floor. Yes, I will, if I receive it back to consider my amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would note that we would like to have and will get a debate on this issue at some point in time about separate barracks for the genders. And I had that as my understanding, that that was the debate that we were going to at the present time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, if I could make a parliamentary inquiry. As I understood, I was putting forward an amendment to be considered and had the floor to speak concerning that amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President--

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Terry Bare, be able to sit in on the debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. The Senator from Virginia is correct.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to address further the issue of cost on this, because some will allege that is the reason we should block this, because it puts a cost figure of $166 million, $190 million. I am very sensitive to the cost issue, so I provide for the authorization. But I also challenge my colleagues on this very point to think about this. Basic training for 9 weeks, pressurized environment. It is where you teach, train, build, and mold--9 weeks of a focused, intense time period that is taking place. You are putting somebody 18 years old, male and female, into that pressurized environment. Is this a place for us to cut costs in the military, saying because of that cost we have to force them onto the same floor and the same common area because we cannot afford the $166 million? Mind you, the Kassebaum Commission says we can do this at zero to minimal cost. We can do this with minimal, if any, cost. Let's say it does have some cost with it. I don't think it does. I don't support that notion. Anyway, if you are 18 years old looking at going into the military, isn't this a pretty minimal amount of cost? If you are the family of that 18-year-old considering going into the military, is that a cost that you want the Government to be putting forth and being a part of? My goodness, we have to make some sense out of this. This is a very narrow amendment that we are asking for. I hope we have a direct vote on this. I hope we will be able to get to it. I will learn my lessons quickly. So I hope we can get to a vote on this particular issue. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes; I yield to the Senator.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the comments and wisdom of the Senator from Virginia. We are attempting further engagement. I also want to recognize my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who has been a leader in this overall effort, as well as Senator Harkin and Senator Robb. The whole Senate, hopefully, will be engaged in this matter. Mr. President, if no one else seeks to speak--I guess perhaps there is somebody else. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, it was our intent that the United States has put on a set of sanctions via the Glenn amendment that were automatic, and we thought it important to state that if we are going to take that position, we should be urging other nations to do so as well. Yet, in the longer term, as we get further out here, I think we should be dealing in a dialog of, how do we get these lifted on a step-by-step, confidence-building measure? At the present time, we are in a unilateral sanctions position, and I think we should urge other nations to join us in that statement, but at the same time I want us to start building the confidence and moving away from those if we can't get other nations to join us in this effort.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to retain the remainder of that. Privilege of the Floor I ask unanimous consent that Terry Williams, a fellow in my office, be permitted privilege of the floor today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last month, following India's nuclear tests, I offered legislation to repeal section 620(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (otherwise known as the Pressler amendment). The Pressler amendment concerns restriction on the provision of military assistance and other transfers to Pakistan. When Pakistan blundered into responding to India's nuclear tests with tests of its own, this amendment not only became pointless symbolically, but because of existing sanctions law it was no longer relevant. How rapidly events change. Last month when I proposed to repeal Pressler, the world was reacting in stunned disbelief to India's nuclear tests. At the time it seemed our only hope in stalling an all out nuclear arms race in South Asia was to offer Pakistan some security assurances, while at the same time urging them in the strongest terms not to be drawn into this dangerous display of nuclear saber rattling. Unfortunately, Pakistan did test, and we are now imposing sanctions rather than lifting them. The month of May 1998 will be remembered as a time of nuclear anxiety. Tensions were high as the world watched India and Pakistan play nuclear roulette. June has brought some respite; India and Pakistan have declared a moratorium on further nuclear testing, and they are discussing bilateral talks this month. I pray that this nuclear nightmare will pass. The question of South Asia's regional security and our future relations with India and Pakistan remain issues of abiding concern. What has happened in South Asia is in many ways an indictment of the administration's failed foreign and nonproliferation policies. Consider that, at this very moment Congress is investigating the administration for its export control policies, particularly as they relate to China. These policies have made possible the wholesale proliferation of missile and nuclear technology, not only to Pakistan, but to others, such as Iran. Mr. President, the testing of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, and the resulting security crisis in South Asia should be of grave concern to all of us. We must continue to condemn India and Pakistan's nuclear tests, and urge them to enact confidence and security building measures to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. We must encourage a more involved role by the United States in seeking a diplomatic solution, and in providing leadership to resolve the conflict over the disputed territory in Jumma Kashmir. We should urge India and Pakistan to roll back their nuclear programs, and to come into compliance with the NPT. In addition the United States should develop policies which will promote stable, democratic, and economically thriving economies in India and Pakistan. Last week the administration implemented sanctions against India and Pakistan. Although the scope of these sanctions is limited--ending economic aids, loans, and military sales--they will cast a negative pall on our relations until they are lifted. We should not underestimate the symbolic and economic impact of these sanctions. In India, America-bashing has taken the form of boycotting American products and vandalizing establishments selling them. There are reports that foreign capital is fleeing India and Pakistan, and financial markets there have already been badly hurt. It is premature today to talk about lifting these sanctions, but I don't believe it is too early to begin planning for their gradual removal. For that reason I am considering legislation which could provide for the conditional removal of sanctions against India and Pakistan, based upon progress as outlined in the Geneva Communique. I think the communiques issued after the P-5 meeting in Geneva, and the G-8 meeting in London are reasonable appeals to India and Pakistan by the nuclear powers. Eighty other nations have joined the P-5 and the G-8 in denouncing these nuclear tests and calling for action by India and Pakistan. But, these appeals will not be met by India and Pakistan simply because they were announced in official communiques. The Geneva communique said that confidence building measures, incentives, disincentives, and other actions are steps the international community can take in its relations with India and Pakistan. There are a number of actions we in Congress can take to move this process forward. Here are just a few. We can listen to the concerns put forward by the Indian and Pakistani people. This week I will be leading a delegation to India and Pakistan to hold meetings with their leaders. My goal in visiting India and Pakistan is to hear, first hand, the views and concerns of their leadership. I also want to give assurances that this issue is very much on the front burner for the U.S. Congress. As I said in a hearing two weeks ago, it would be folly to isolate India and Pakistan at this time. We must be engaged. Unfortunately, in recent years U.S. foreign policy in India and Pakistan has been one of estrangement, not engagement. We can work closely with the administration. This week I plan to invite the State Department Special Coordinator for India and Pakistan and interested members to a round table to explore how we might constructively engage India and Pakistan. I look forward to the results of those meetings. In all of this--our meetings, our travel to the region, and our discussions with allies--our goal is to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons in South Asia, restore regional security, and put our bilateral relationships with India and Pakistan back on track. We should settle for no less. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will ask for the passage of these bills. I do not believe that we will need a rollcall vote. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 7 minutes of the 10 minutes allotted.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could inquire briefly of the Senator from Virginia who asked to speak on this amendment how much time he might desire on this?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think we can do all of this in 15 minutes, with all parties being able to speak. That would be my sense. I think I can get my comments done in about 7 minutes or so.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have a short period of time to be able to discuss this, because at 5 o'clock we go to the Coverdell amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 2407 is now the pending business. Is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.