Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2874, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. I think the reporter appreciated your effort a lot more than the folks in New York appreciated my efforts.

Mr. LEVIN. I hope I didn't blow it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared. On behalf of Senator D'Amato, I will make an effort at pronouncing the town of Skaneateles.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Wyden, I call up an amendment No. 2874, as modified, which would require the General Accounting Office to report on methods used to calculate overhead costs at the Department of Energy cleanup sites.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2992 (Purpose: To ensure continuity in the management of the program for assessing alternative technologies for the destruction of assembled chemical munitions, and to provide for the use of such technologies)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would reauthorize a special advisory committee on U.S. trade. The Auto Parts Advisory Committee (APAC) is an important private sector industry advisory group made up of American auto parts companies that advise the Commerce Department on auto parts trade negotiations with Japan and Asia. APAC was established by the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act included in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. It was reauthorized in 1995. APAC's authorization will expire at the end of this year. At a time of soaring U.S. trade deficits with Japan and the rest of Asia, continued market opening negotiations are critical to removing barriers and achieving deregulation in these automotive markets. The overall U.S. trade deficit with Japan can only be reduced if the automotive portion of that deficit--on average 60 percent of the total--is reduced. We must have the tools at our disposal to do this, including the cooperation and resolve of the private sector to present our trading partners with a united front to advance the U.S. negotiating position. Because of the unfair trade barriers U.S. automotive exports face in a number of Asian markets, this reauthorization language will expand APAC's parameters to allow it to advise the Administration on trade consultations in Japan and other Asian markets. APAC has done much to focus the attention and will of the U.S. government on finding a results-oriented solution to the auto parts problem with Japan. It has also played an important role in organizing an industry that is made up of thousands of diverse companies, many of them small businesses, to speak more with one voice with regard to the trade debate. This industry directly employs over 700,000. If we can open up foreign markets to U.S. auto parts exports we can create more high paying American manufacturing jobs in the auto parts industry. This is good for American workers, its good for U.S.-based auto parts companies and its good for our economy. APAC is able to provide our trade negotiators with insight on the U.S. auto parts industry and the specific barriers they confront in Japan and elsewhere in Asia. Often individual U.S. auto parts companies that are trying to enter these markets do not want to speak out individually about protectionist foreign trade barriers that they have encountered for fear that doing so could jeopardize potential business opportunities in the countries in question. That is an understandable concern and that is why the U.S. Government, with input from APAC advising the government as an industry, can and should speak up on behalf of American companies trying to break into foreign markets. In addition to its advisory role to the Commerce Department, APAC has also issued a number of useful studies and reports on the competitiveness of the United States auto parts industry and on the barriers to trade faced in selling to Japan. It has also issued reports and recommendations to the Commerce Department and the U.S. Congress on what steps must be taken to open Japan's markets to U.S. auto parts. The U.S. auto parts industry and the Administration support the extension of APAC so that it can continue its contribution to market opening efforts for the sale of U.S. auto parts in Japan and elsewhere in Asia. We should reauthorize APAC without delay so that its members can continue their good work advising our trade negotiators on auto parts trade in Japan and Asia. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on the other side, I believe.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide legislative authority for the committee's recommendation to fully fund the budget request for alternatives to antipersonnel landmines, which would provide the Secretary of Defense authority to contract with scientific organizations to provide recommendations on research and development of tactics, technologies and concepts as alternatives to antipersonnel landmines.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2989 (Purpose: Relating to landmines)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared. At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, I offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the National Academy of Science, to assess the need for establishing a military post-conflict health center.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2987 (Purpose: To provide for an assessment of the establishment of an independent entity to evaluate post-conflict illnesses among members of the Armed Forces and the health care provided by the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs both before and after the deployment of such members)

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield that 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN. First of all, Mr. President, we have all read about some terrible incidents that occurred at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds that gave rise to much of the concern about recruit training. Those incidents did not occur in recruit training. They did not occur in recruit sleeping areas. They did not involve sexual misconduct among recruits. They took place in advanced individual training, which is a phase of training which takes place after an individual graduates from recruit training. The incidents that give rise to so much of this understandable concern did not occur in the recruit training area or phase which this first-degree amendment would address. I want to emphasize something on which the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has just spoken. We appointed a committee or a commission, 10 citizens. These are distinguished citizens that were selected by the chairman, by me, by the chairman of our counterpart committee in the House, and by the ranking member in the House. This commission is underway. We picked 10 distinguished citizens. We asked them to look at a particular agenda, a list of items. We set forth their duties and they are now fulfilling those duties. This is what our law said, and this is something which had broad support in this body. The law said: The commission shall consider issues relating to personal relationships of members of the Armed Forces as follows: 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. Assess the extent to which the laws, regulations, policies, directives and practices have been applied consistently throughout the Armed Forces, without regard to the Armed Forces, grade, rank or gender of the individuals involved. Then comes the third thing we ask them to do. This was a knowing, conscious request--a statement to this commission, saying this is your duty: Duty No. 3: Assess the reports of the independent panel, the Department of Defense task force, and the review of existing guidance on fraternization and adultery that have been required by the Secretary of Defense. Our good friend from Kansas has said that common sense dictates that since the Kassebaum Commission made this recommendation, we ought to follow it. No. Common sense dictates that when we appoint a commission with the explicit duty of assessing the Kassebaum Commission report-- when we do that knowingly and openly, when we ask 10 distinguished citizens to give up part of their life to come here and assess the Kassebaum report, which is what we did in last year's law, that we not simply say, whoops, some of us liked the Kassebaum report and we are now going to adopt that and bypass the very commission that we created. I mean, what is the point of the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives unanimously tasking a group of citizens to look at the Kassebaum Commission report, among other things, and now once that report is issued, because some of us like the recommendation, we take that piece of the report and say that we are now going to put that into law and bypass our own commission? I think it makes a mockery of the process that we ourselves set into motion. We should not do that. Now, since I have a couple more minutes, I want to state what some of the underlying facts are about the way in which the males and females live. First, nowhere in recruit training in any service do male and female recruits live in the same room or in the same squad bay. These conditions do not exist now, and they did not exist when the incidents at Aberdeen took place. Male and female recruits do live in the same buildings, and in some cases, they live in separate wings or on separate floors. In some cases, they live on the same floors, but are separated by fire-safe barrier walls. But in every case, male and female recruits have controlled entrances and exits to their sleeping areas, and have segregated toilet and shower facilities. Now, what have the services told us about this? The heads of the services have told us, ``Do not change this now.'' The heads of the services have told us this. The chief professionals have told us this. The senior enlisted members of the Army, Navy and Air Force, have written to the committee opposing the amendment. These are the professionals that we rely on. When it comes to the matters affecting the safety, welfare, and well-being of the men and women in our military, these are the people we rely on. These are the professionals. They have asked us, ``Do not enact this legislation.'' So on both counts--that our top military officials, uniform and civilian, have asked us to not enact this legislation, and the fact that we have appointed a commission that is going to give us a recommendation, which we put in place, in part, to review the Kassebaum Commission report--we should not take this action tonight. Finally, the sergeant major of the Army, the master chief petty officer of the Navy, and the chief master sergeant of the Air Force have written us a letter, which was referred to by a number of my colleagues. I will not repeat the portions that they read. But I am going to quote one paragraph that I believe has not been read. This summarizes, to me, what the really critical point is, which was so well stated by the Senators from Maine and Georgia, and others. This is what they say: Each time our Nation has asked the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines to do a job, it has been done. Men and women soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines accomplish the tasks asked of them every day in places like Bosnia, Haiti, Southwest Asia, and the Far East. Their many successes in our gender-integrated All-Volunteer force is a direct result of the training the services currently provide. I hope that we will listen to these professionals. These are the individuals who went to boot camp and have come up through the ranks to the highest position possible for an enlisted member. When it comes to matters affecting the safety, welfare, and well-being of the men and women in our military, these are the experts! And, they have asked us not to enact this legislation. That leaves us with the question: Who wants this legislation and why? What problem will it solve? Neither the military nor civilian leadership of the Department of Defense or of the Military Departments want it. The senior enlisted members of the Army, Navy and Air Force see it as unnecessary. Finally, it short-circuits the work of a Congressional Commission of distinguished citizens that this body voted into law less than one year ago. The Armed Services Committee included in its mark-up a provision to provide for a moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding segregation of integration on the basis of gender that is within the responsibility of the Commission appointed by the Congress, until that Commission terminates in March 1999. I believe that it would be both short-sighted and very unfortunate for the Senate to adopt the Brownback amendment and to cause the Department of Defense to expend in excess of $150 million against the collective judgment--military and civilian--of DOD and before we have had the opportunity to benefit from the advice of our own Commission. The second degree amendment Senators Cleland and Snowe have offered retains the moratorium on changes to policies or practices regarding segregation of integration on the basis of gender that is within the responsibility of the Commission appointed by the Congress, until that Commission terminates in March 1999. I believe that this is a very reasonable approach. It would permit the Army, Navy, and Air Force to continue to conduct recruit training in the manner best suited to producing soldiers, sailors, and airmen ready to meet the challenges of our military. Uniformed Leadership of our military--leaders to whose appointments we have given our advice and consent--say it best: General Reimer (Chief of Staff of the Army): ``Segregating their units into gender unique platoons for training and billeting the soldiers by gender in separate buildings will degrade the commander's ability to command and control his or her unit.'' Admiral Johnson (Chief of Naval Operations): ``Sailors should learn to live and work together from the first day of training.'' Admiral Pilling (Vice Chief of Naval Operations): ``Learning about security, privacy, dignity and personal responsibility should not be a lesson left for the fleet to teach.'' General Ryan (Chief of Staff of the Air Force) ``The saying `train as we operate' is more than a catch phrase, it is an absolute necessity to ensure that team building begins on the first day our recruits report to basic training.'' Senior Enlisted Members ``Any attempt to make a training policy that applies across all Services is not in the best interest of the nation and will impact the readiness of the total force.'' I urge my colleagues to support the 2nd degree amendment and permit our Commission to complete the work we assigned to it and to report back to us before we direct any changes to recruit training.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask that the Senator from Maine, then, yield 8 minutes to me.