Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is actually what happens and takes place, which is--just think about it. That is the signal that we are sending to the American public, that they actually are encouraged to do something like this by the tax policy of the U.S. Congress? That is an incredible thing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the question the Senator is asking. I am told also there is a married couple, they are economists at one of the universities in the country, who each year divorce at the end of the year and get married the next day. Then they have kind of a party with the money that they earned and keep by going through this process of divorcing on December 30, or 31 and marrying again on January 1st or 2nd. They have kind of a honeymoon each year off of this signal that they are able to read from the Federal Government. And the thing about it, I do not want to suggest that more people do that. I think that would be a wrong notion. But still it is----

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask Senator Chafee, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act if he could please explain the eligibility requirements to qualify for loans from the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan fund, or DWSRF as it is commonly known?

Mr. BROWNBACK. A community in Kansas called Colwich receives their drinking water from private wells. When the county tested a sampling of the wells in this community they discovered that 81 percent of the wells are poorly constructed, 75 percent are improperly located, 29 percent experience bacterial problems and 6 percent have levels of nitrates greater than the EPA recommended level. Senator Chafee, as a cosponsor to the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, is it your opinion that providing DWSRF money to the community of Colwich will enable the families of Colwich to have safe drinking water and will further the health objectives of this Act?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank very much the Senator from Kentucky. I, too, ask that I be added as a cosponsor of this bill. I applaud the leadership of Senator McConnell, and the leadership of the majority leader, Trent Lott, in moving this forward rapidly. I think the number of people who have spoken on the floor about the issue of food and that it should never, ever be used as a political weapon or tool in foreign policy, speaks clearly with the mind of the Senate that it doesn't work. Food being used as a political tool or as a tool of foreign policy should never, ever occur. Hopefully, as we move forward on some reforms, that will be a point of agreement, something with which everybody agrees: Food is never, ever to be used. It only hurts the people and hurts our farmers in the United States. So I congratulate my colleagues. I particularly recognize my colleague from Kansas who has been a leading proponent in agriculture and agricultural trade for many years in the Congress, now in the U.S. Senate. We need to move this legislation, and we need to move it now. Senator Robb and I just got back 10 days ago--actually less than that, 7 days ago--from a trip to India and Pakistan. We met with the prime ministers of both countries. We met with the defense and foreign policy leadership in both countries, and we saw areas that they want to engage with the United States, feel they have definite security needs-- both India and Pakistan --that they are responding to and are having difficulty in understanding us throwing the book at them. I think we need to work now, obviously, in lifting this particular sanction on food. It should not be in place, period, anyway. It should be lifted rapidly, and I am glad to see the leadership doing that. We next need to work on lifting the rest of the sanctions. We need to do it, in my estimation, rapidly. Pakistan is in crisis. They have less than 2 months foreign reserves of funds left to meet their debt loans. They have lost half of the valuation of their stock market. We need to do so rapidly. We need to move forward in a way that reduces tension in the region, and this is a key point as well. We went to the line of control between Pakistan and India, and tensions are high. At the time we were there, 11 people were bombed and killed on the Pakistani side--just the time we were there. We met with a number of villagers who had been wounded at some point in time in the last 6 to 12 months. They were showing us the wounds they had. We have to act in a way that reduces tension. We have to act in a way that re-engages the United States in the region. I am convinced we can do all of these things. This is a good first step. We have to further engage. I think we have to engage the United States broadly in the region with India and Pakistan. There were a number of concerns raised by India while we were there at the same time the President was in China, saying that they were reacting to perceived threats from China that they have stated publicly and they were saying to Senator Robb and myself as well. On Monday, Senator Robb and I will be hosting a hearing in the Foreign Relations subcommittee that deals with the Indian subcontinent on the issue of how can we next move forward with lifting the remainder of these sanctions in a way that we can do so rapidly, that helps the countries involved, that doesn't hurt unequally countries like Pakistan and India, that reduces tension in the region, and works rapidly to move this issue forward. We need to do so. I am delighted to see that we are dealing with this issue of food. We do need to deal with the rest of the issues, particularly in the economic areas. We do need to deal with the areas of reducing tension in the region. I am convinced we can do all of this. We need to be back up in front of this body quickly, again, with the steps we need to take to further engage the United States in lifting the sanctions in this region. I congratulate the leadership on moving this forward. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for a period of up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Today, Senator Lieberman and I will host a policy forum entitled ``The Young and the Violent: What is Behind the Spread of Juvenile Violence--and What Can Be Done About It?'' The horror of the killings in Jonesboro, Arkansas; Paducah, Kentucky; Edinboro, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Oregon; Fayetteville, Tennessee, among other places, shattered forever the illusion that ``it can't happen here.'' The young and the violent are found in small towns as well as big cities, and their numbers, as well as their crimes, are growing. We will hear today from some of the most respected criminologists in the nation--as well as those who are working to transform their communities and solve their problems locally. Their insights on the causes, catalysts and consequences of the spread of juvenile crime are helpful in grappling with the most important questions of our time, namely: why has crime risen and civility declined? How have we failed to civilize our children? What is happening to our national character? Make no mistake, our culture has changed radically over the past few decades. Since the mid-1960s, violent juvenile crime has increased more than 500 percent. And even though teen violence has dropped over the past three years, teen murders have jumped dramatically since even the early 1980s--and there is reason to believe that they will continue to increase. Not only have the rates and number of juvenile crimes increased, but they have changed in nature as well. Juvenile crime has grown increasingly predatory--where teens kill strangers for the most trivial of matters--a jacket, or a dirty look--or even worse, for sport. Moreover, the young and the violent are found in rural and suburban areas, as well as the inner cities. Gangs and guns are ever more visible in our schools. Fistfights begin to seem quaint by comparison. Violence that was once unthinkable now fails to shock. In our schools, and across the nation, we have, to borrow a phrase from my colleague Senator Moynihan, ``defined deviancy down.'' This forum seeks answers to the questions of why kids kill, why teen violence is on the rise, and what can be done about it. Of course, there are no easy answers. But there are a lot of contributing factors. Perhaps the single most important factor is the continued breakdown of the American family. Today, almost a third of all children are born out of wedlock. Around half of all children will live in a broken home before they turn 18. Tens of millions of little boys and girls will grow up without a loving and committed father. There are other cultural warning signs. Popular entertainment continues to glamorize violence. Movies and computer games grow ever more gory and grisly. Chart-topping songs feature lyrics celebrating torture, rape, and murder. Glorifying violence in popular entertainment--whether it be music, or movies, or video games--is dangerous. It is dangerous because a society that glorifies violence will grow more violent. We had a hearing recently on the issue of music lyrics. One person made the point along this line and said that if John Philip Sousa's music makes us feel patriotic, and if other music, like Frank Sinatra's, makes us feel romantic, what does music that is violent make us feel? If it is hateful, if it is anti-women, if it is oriented towards death and destruction, we think that is going to make us feel that way--that music will just wrap around your soul and cause some distortions to take place. But most importantly, this discussion will focus on ways to prevent, curtail, and combat teen violence--whether on the Congressional, state, local, or societal level. I hope that we will gain insight not only on the proper government policies to deter and combat crime, but also on non-governmental initiatives--including those by churches, faith-based organizations, and charities--that have reached out to troubled youth, and succeeded where government has failed. One of the great things about our nation is that for each of our problems, there are people who are living and working the solution. In churches, youth groups, schools, charities, and families across the nation, miracles are every day taking place. These groups show what is possible by what is actual--that is, their real-life success stories should inspire us with the possibilities. We in Congress need to enact wise and prudent crime-fighting policies. But we also need to allow these small, often faith-based groups to touch the souls and transform the lives of those in need. Mr. President, I know that you, as the Presiding Officer and a Senator in this body, know full well the problems that we are facing in this culture and in this society, and the increase in the violent nature of what is happening here. We are all troubled and very perplexed by it. What we are hoping with this discussion and policy forum that Senator Lieberman and I have today is that we will be able to begin the national dialog--actually not only begin but continue the national dialog--about what each of us can do now to become a more civilized country to stop the violence from growing. Abe Lincoln made a point that the United States frequently is a nation that moves to a common thought. I think today we have decided we have focused in on saying this is a major problem. Youth violence is a major problem. What can each of us in our individual capacities and our capacities in this body, or in other places--in our communities and homes, in our churches and synagogues--do to solve this problem? That is what we are going to focus on today--some of the individual solutions that have taken place, what are appropriate governmental policies. But, more importantly, let's get to the common thought on how to start solving this growing problem in America. I invite my colleagues to tune in to this policy forum that we will have starting today at 2:30. I hope some of them will be willing to join us and follow the subsequent proceedings as we pick up this debate and try to carry it on forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I object to that.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a resolution calling upon the Administration to do its utmost to protect the personal security of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia. Against overwhelming odds, President Shevardnadze has fought for his country's sovereignty and independence and has led it to a position where it is starting to achieve positive economic growth and is making great strides towards democracy. President Shevardnadze is a world class leader, and he and his country are natural allies of the United States in a part of the world that is crucial to the geo-political interests of the United States. President Shevardnadze has accomplished these great achievements under the most difficult circumstances one could imagine. There have been two assassination attempts in the last three years alone and he has been working tirelessly to reach peaceful resolution with the separatist forces within Georgia. As if this weren't difficult enough, he has had to do this in the face of continual undermining by certain forces within the Russian Federation. A case in point is Abkhazia: since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has been using Abkhazia to maintain control in Georgia and in the Caucasus: the Russians encouraged separatists forces, armed and supported with fighters, intelligence and air power and used the resultant instability to force President Shevardnadze and Georgia to join the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Russia also used this weakness to force the presence of Russian bases on Georgian territory. President Shevardnadze was forced to sign the military base agreement allowing Russia troops to be stationed in Georgia without compensation, in fact Georgia is forced to pay Russia. And when he objected, President Shevardnadze was told point blank by the Russian Prime Minister either to sign the base agreement or Russia would put someone else in his place to sign it. Russian strategy in Georgia appears to be a combination of factors driven by those who seek to pay President Shevardnadze back for his dismantling of the Soviet empire, and those who seek to prevent Caspian oil and other commerce from following through Georgia to the West, and who wish to break Georgia's increasingly close ties to the West and to the United States in particular. The destabilizing activities have not stopped and include attempts to assassinate President Shevardnadze himself. On August 29, 1995 he narrowly survived a car bomb attack as he departed his offices in the Georgian Parliament building to attend the signing ceremony for the new constitution of Georgia. The former Chief of the Georgian National Security Service, Lieutenant General Igor Giorgadze, after being implicated in organizing this attempt on President Shevardnadze's life, escaped to Moscow after fleeing Georgia from the Russian-controlled Varziani airbase on a Russian military aircraft. Since that time, Giorgadze has been spotted on a number of occasions in Moscow and the Georgians have repeatedly requested his extradition to Georgia. But despite the specificity of the information presented to them about Giogadze's whereabouts in Russia, the Russian Interior Ministry has claimed repeatedly that it is unable to locate Mr. Giorgadze. In short, Russia has refused to extradite him to Georgia for trial. Further, Mr. President, another violent attempt was made on President Shevardnadze's life in February of this year. Here again, the perpetrators of this heinous act fled Georgia from a Russian military base. And barely a month later, two escort planes which were to escort the President's flight from the Turkish border on a return flight to the Georgian capital Tbilsi, were found sabotaged and inoperable, thus forcing the President's plane to return unescorted and unprotected and in direct danger of air attack. Those disabled planes, Mr. President, were sabotaged while on the ground in a Russian military base in Georgia. Throughout all these events, the Administration has remained shockingly silent. This is unacceptable behavior towards a friend an ally. In the face of the clear pattern of destabilization in which Russia is engaged, the Administration should not have to be prodded to stand up and speak loudly in defense of this friend and ally. Unfortunately, a reticence to engage Russia on its bad behavior in Georgia and the Caucasus has led to an unacceptable passivity on the part of the Administration. It is time for this to change. And it must change soon. There is no need to remind my colleagues that Title II of the Foreign Operations Appropriations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, prohibits assistance to any government of the former Soviet Union if that government directs any action in violation of the national sovereignty of any other new independent state. The sense of the senate I am introducing today calls upon the Administration to step up its pressure on Russia to extradite Igor Giorgadze, the alleged perpetrator of the August 1995 assassination attempt on President Shevardnadze; and to stop using its bases in Georgia as an escape for assassins and terrorists; and to provide all assistance necessary to provide for the personal safety of President Shevardnadze. This resolution is just a first step. I believe the United States should be pressing Russia to remove its bases from Russia--after all, they are there against the will of the Georgian people. And I now call upon the Administration to stand up for President Shevardnadze and for Georgia, and to publicly and loudly condemn the efforts of any group that seeks to destabilize Georgia. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending this message and will support this resolution. amendment no. 2907 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to select the technology to be used for tritium production by December 31, 1998) On page 398, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Byrd amendment and speak in favor of that amendment. I will not take very long, but I do want to draw some points of attention to my colleagues. This amendment is about separate barracks and separate training. We had a thorough debate on this yesterday, so I don't need to speak for a long period of time. This amendment, in my estimation, is a very sensible step in restoring privacy and dignity to the military basic training experience. The amendment codifies--I want to make this point very clear to my colleagues--this amendment, actually more than the one I put forward yesterday, this amendment codifies the Kassebaum-Baker recommendation, a unanimous commission, a bipartisan recommendation of separate-gender barracks facilities, and this goes on to say also during basic training separate-gender training. This is also what has passed the House. So if my colleagues ask the question, Is this moving too far forward? I want to point a couple things out to them. This is the unanimous recommendation of the Kassebaum-Baker commission. This is the recommendation. This is what has passed the House of Representatives. This is what the Marines currently do, and it is what most of the branches, up until this decade, did as well. But the sole point I actually want to make to my colleagues is this. We have had a good airing of this. When you come down to vote on this bill, will you please think of your daughters and your sons and sending them to basic training? I just ask and beg of you, please just think about your 18-year-old children. And when you send them off to basic training--would you ask yourself, as you vote: Do I want to send my young daughter--in my case, Abby and Liz--do I want to send my 18-year-old daughter to basic training--I want them to serve their country; I really do want them to serve their country--but do I want to send them to basic training, 18 years old, and be able to have a male drill sergeant come in and out at any time of the day or night, such as in the cases that have taken place and take place? Do I want to have them in the same barracks facility as other 18- year-old men, who, at the end of the day, may be looking for other things to do? Is that where I want to put Abby and Elizabeth? Is that where you want to put your daughters, your children? This is not a wild idea or notion that Senator Byrd has put forward. It is common sense. It is the thing we ought to do. And so when the Senators cast their votes tonight, I hope when they write down that vote, they will think about their daughters, their granddaughters, their sons, their grandsons, and America, and ask, What is really best here? Let us not hide behind another commission. A lot of people just want to do that--``Let's have another commission''--and we will do a commission until it reports out the way some people want. Let us just do what we know is right, what we have been doing with the Kassebaum- Baker commission reports, what has already passed, and let us pass the Byrd amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BROWNBACK. May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. I would like to respond to a few things that have been stated here about what we are talking about and what we are not talking about in the final minutes that I have in this debate. No. 1 is, what we are talking about is separate barracks during basic training--separate barracks during basic training. We are not talking about further training; we are not talking about deployment, any of those issues that are being raised as a smokescreen by others. We are not talking about separation. We are talking about the 9 weeks of basic training, separate barracks. All right, that is No. 1. No. 2 is we are also talking about limited access by trainers of the opposite sex after hours. We have had instances--we have had court-martials. Even this month we have had a court-martial take place in the Navy involving that type of situation. So what we are saying is if you are of the opposite gender, you can't go into the facility where the other gender is staying after hours other than in emergency cases. Those are the two things we are talking about. Those are intimate issues and they have eminent common sense about them, plus I might add being backed up by the Kassebaum-Baker commission, the Army survey that I showed, the CRS study that I also cited earlier. So I have three studies on this point as well as making what basically most people would say is pretty much common sense about this issue. We are not talking about separate training. Senator Byrd was going to have an amendment along that line, and I think he has some wisdom with it, but we are not talking about that sort of issue. Some are saying, look, we don't have a problem. Well, I cited to you the court-martial that has taken place at the Great Lakes Navy basic training facility, and I read the quotes from some of the people involved in that horrible instance as to what took place there. I would also cite to you some other problem areas. We did some surveying of the military on these issues. We asked them about official reprimands in instances in the last 12 months involving trainers and trainees. The Army gave us 53 that were involved in article 15s over the last 2 years involving trainers and trainees. That is a lot that were involved in this type of situation. Also I want to cite--and there was one thing the Senator from Michigan cited saying that this isn't a particular problem. We have got those in that particular case, and the services do not want to do this. Well, the Army and Navy and the Air Force may not. The Marines think that separate training and separate barracks is the way to go and they are having fewer instances that they are reporting. I want to cite another study. This is the Department of Defense 1995 sexual harassment study. This one is amazing if you look at it. They are talking about the progress taking place. In 1995, they surveyed their personnel and 55 percent of the women in the Army, 55 percent of the women surveyed in this Department of Defense study said they had some type of sexual harassment taking place within the last year. Listen to how this breaks down. Actual or attempted rape or assault, 4 percent of the women surveyed said that this had happened to them; pressure for sexual favors, 11 percent; touching or cornering, 29 percent. This is the 1995 Department of Defense sexual harassment study. We don't have a problem? We have a significant problem taking place. I have other studies to cite here, but what I want to get to with this is to say that we have a current and present problem and danger involved in this situation. We are talking about an amendment of very limited scope. We can do studies until we find one that comes out the way we want it to come out, and I suppose if we keep appointing people that may happen. The commission that has been appointed has a much broader purview than this narrow issue of the barracks. It says the duties of the commission shall be to: Review the current practices of the Armed Forces, relevant studies, and private sector training concepts pertaining to gender-integrated training. OK, but it also says: Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and practices that govern personal relationships between men and women in the Armed Forces and personal relationships between members of the Armed Forces and nonmilitary personnel of the opposite sex. That is broader than just the barracks during basic training we are talking about. Assess the extent to which the laws, regulations, policies, and directives have been applied consistently throughout the Armed Forces without regard to the Armed Force, grade, or rank of the individuals involved. Whether or not everybody is being reviewed similarly: Examine the experiences, policies, and practices of the Armed Forces of other industrialized nations regarding gender-integrated training. Training: We are not talking about training here. We are just talking about barracks during basic training. My point is that some would say we have appointed this commission and to not let it go on through; by doing this, that we are overruling the commission. This is a very broad-based commission. We have a clear and present problem in basic training that just earlier this month on June 5 we have a court-martial taking place at the Navy training grounds, and we have got 53 instances being reported in the last 2 years by the Army--53 official reprimands. I get calls to my office by people asking to be released from the military because of sexual harassment that has happened to them in basic training. Do we need another year to study this? Do we need another year to contemplate this? My own staff then goes down to Fort Jackson to look at the situation because there is an issue regarding the common area that is involved here: Let's just put them in the same facility, but we will put them on different floors or separate, different wings out here, but then we have a common area together. My own staff was told about, well, there was sexual activities taking place, on the fire escape and in the telephone booth. Where there is a will there is a way, I guess. But my point is, if you are going to put young 18-year-old recruits in the same place in a pressurized environment and you are going to provide some chances, this is going to happen. What we are saying is let's just put them in separate facilities by 2001. Let's give it some time, common sense, so we can get this put into place, and that is specifically and only what we are talking about. And let's limit the supervisors, the trainers being able to go into the trainees' facilities of the opposite sex after hours other than for emergency cases because we have had some really horrible instances taking place there. So, Mr. President, I think if you look at the preponderance of evidence that is here with all the studies that have been done, we can do yet another one, and if this one doesn't come out the way we want, I suppose we may do yet another one, but we have enough. We have a real problem today--and this is going to really catch up with us--of recruits coming into the military. This is a simple proposal, a simple matter. We don't need to put it off for another commission to study this. The evidence is overwhelming and the findings have been overwhelming to date. So with that, Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment. Let us have a vote on this very simple issue of separate barracks and not having members of the opposite sex in the quarters after hours other than for emergency cases. That is all that we are asking for in this particular amendment. So please vote no on the Snowe amendment so we can put the Kassebaum commission into place. With that, Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to be very magnanimous and yield 2 minutes to somebody who absolutely disagrees with me on this amendment, who I think is absolutely wrong, but I want to be collegial with my colleagues and recognize and yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan. I would like 30 seconds at the end in case I need to say something.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to simply respond to the statements of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Massachusetts. They are simply not true. We have the June 5 case taking place at the Navy train facility, a court-martial because of fraternization, harassment, sexual activity by the trainer with trainees involved in this. Separate barracks: Keep the trainers out afterhours. This makes sense, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the Senator from Alabama 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield 5 minutes--and there are several of my colleagues who want to speak on this, but Senator Coats has been a leading voice on this, serving on the committee--I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Could I ask a parliamentary question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will be asking for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time on this. I plead with my colleagues to really consider this. I ask them really just one small, simple favor: Will they call their constituent services' offices to see how many recruits they have been contacted by back home during this past year asking for relief from military duty because they were sexually assaulted, got pregnant at basic training or at training, and see what the numbers are in their particular office? One is too many. But I would be interested to see how many of them have had multiple contacts in their office. We shouldn't ignore this anymore. We should deal with it. This is a minor request we should be making. With that, Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays at the proper time. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am pleased to do so.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The Senator is absolutely correct. They, as a service, agree with what the Kassebaum Commission put forth. The other services have not.