[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4724-S4725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SEXUAL CONDUCT, TRAINING, AND AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, two weeks ago, on May 6, 1997, a military 
jury sentenced an Army staff sergeant to 25 years in prison for raping 
six female trainees, just one of a series of highly visible scandals 
regarding sexual relations now plaguing training facilities in the 
Army. Press reports indicate that hundreds of similar cases of alleged 
sexual abuse and discrimination have been reported and are being 
investigated at other military training commands around the country. On 
May 10, 1997, the senior enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army was charged 
with similar offenses. The extent of the scandals that have been 
unearthed at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, as well as other 
facilities, indicates to me that the time has arrived for a thorough 
review of further gender-integrated training in the military. There are 
those who feel that same-sex training has failed as a training 
mechanism and is adversely affecting morale, discipline and the 
integrity of our armed forces. This is a serious situation, involving 
very serious allegations with possible repercussions on our national 
security. The situation needs to be examined with a dispassionate 
attitude, and it greatly complicates our task if well-meaning advocacy 
groups in our country make the assumption that anyone who calls for a 
thorough investigation of the viability of gender integrated training 
and operational roles is per se, a bigot, is against equal treatment 
and opportunity, and is trying to roll the clock back because of his or 
her narrow vision.
  The Senate Armed Services committee held a hearing on this matter on 
February 4, 1997, at which the Army leadership testified. Certainly one 
of the issues we need to understand is the pervasiveness of sexual 
misconduct in the services. Are these isolated incidents we have been 
reading about, or are there systemic problems rooted in the integration 
of the armed forces and the environments in which they must train and 
operate? There was some testimony before the committee that these 
incidents are akin to the proverbial few bad apples in the barrel, and 
that what needs to be done is emphasize right and wrong, professional 
behavior, and punish unprofessional behavior. But, Mr. President, the 
numbers involved here tell a different story. The Army established a 
hot line for women to report sexual harassment, misconduct, or abuse 
last fall when the first incidents were reported. In a little over two 
and a half months, that hot line received about 7,000 phone calls. That 
is an astonishing and disturbing number. It takes little courage to 
make such a phone call. One wonders how many phone calls, on top of the 
7,000, that should have been made were not made for fear of 
retaliation, or just reticence. Now, the Secretary of the Army 
testified that by February the number of calls on the hot line had 
``tapered off'' to about 50 a week. This is not indicative to me of 
just a few bad apples in the barrel. More than one thousand of those 
calls have generated an investigation of some kind. Furthermore, recent 
surveys taken by the Defense Manpower Data Center Survey indicated that 
large numbers of women reported one or more incidents of unwanted 
sexual attention. In 1988-89, 68 percent of women reported such 
incidents. In 1995 a similar survey got similar results, with 61 
percent of the women in the Army reporting such incidents. So this is 
not just your random, marginal population. There is a serious, central 
problem that needs to be looked at.
  This is not just about sexual harassment among soldiers of equal 
rank. It is about that, but it is about much more, it is about the use 
of power and authority of sergeants and officers whom we put in 
authority, over the recruits and junior people whom they are 
responsible to train and look after. It is about raw abuse of power of 
a shocking, crude kind. It is about power and sexual misconduct. It 
leads one to ask a fundamental question: are women actually safe in the 
U.S. military? As Senator Snowe said during that hearing: ``As we 
incorporate the sexes together in tighter and tighter situations, at 
higher and higher stress situations, in more confined situations, 
common sense tells us that we are going to be dealing with a very 
difficult problem. Is there a danger that we are trying to minimize the 
very real differences here between men and women? Might there really be 
enough significant distinctions between being a man and being a woman 
that we should be more discriminating, not less, in terms of 
assignments and utilization?''
  The Chief of Staff of the Army, Mr. Joe Reimer, testified at the 
Armed Services hearing that this is an issue that is not about policy, 
and instead it is an issue about right and wrong. That is, it is not 
about whether we should have women in the military, but whether we can 
expect our sergeants and officers in authority to carry out their job 
properly, not use their power to engage in misconduct. But, I think 
that just begs the question. While it is about right and wrong, it is 
also surely about policy. It is about in what situations, what kinds of 
training, what kinds of operations, women and men can work effectively 
in the military, and in what kinds of training and operations 
situations the sexual diversion is just too difficult a factor. For 
instance, we have had gender integrated training in the military since 
1974, but we have only had such training of recruits in the military 
for the last three years. It is in the recruit training situation that 
we are certainly experiencing very serious problems, and surely that 
needs to be revisited now. I note that there is legislation moving 
through the other body to prohibit mixed recruit training. That is one 
natural reaction to the situation, as I now understand it, and that is 
the approach that I would support.
  But I think the better policy question is this: are we putting people 
into situations that put at risk our goal of an effective trained 
combat force with high morale, discipline and unit cohesiveness, making 
that goal more difficult to achieve than it should be? Are we putting 
temptations in the face of people and saying to them, ``overcome those 
temptations?''
  The U.S. military goal is not to change basic human nature. It is to 
mold that nature for very specific military tasks. We do not need a 
major sociological analysis to know that sexual tension between men and 
women is affected by the environment in which

[[Page S4725]]

they are placed. Surely every military activity, and particularly 
recruit training, and high tension battlefield environments, are the 
kinds of environments wherein we need to be particularly attentive to 
the burdens we are placing on normal American men and women.
  It certainly should be clear that integrating men and women in the 
training, and into the combat forces of the military, introduces an 
explosive new element into the attempt to create an effective fighting 
force. The ultimate, bottom-line question should be this: what is the 
impact of sexual integration on the battlefield? The purpose of an Army 
is to fight, and to win. If gender integration enhances the prospects 
of readiness, and effectiveness in combat, then we should all be for 
it. If it reduces American effectiveness on the battlefield, should we 
be for gender integration on the general grounds of social equality? I, 
for one, think the question answers itself, and the answer is no. 
Perhaps the facts are not all in. There are few, if any models around 
the world, of other modern, effective Armies which have gender-
integrated their forces. So we are breaking new ground in America on 
gender integrated training, particularly when it comes to combat roles. 
In plain words, we are conducting an experiment.

  I think that the scandals which we are seeing in the training 
commands must be taken as a danger sign that sexual integration 
complicates an Army's fighting capabilities, in that it introduces a 
new element which diverts the focused attention on winning battles that 
an Army must have.
  It seems completely obvious to me that living and training in close 
quarters puts a strain and a stress on people's behavior. Furthermore, 
the effect of confined environments where men and women work and live 
in close quarters certainly involves sexual issues. It is laughable to 
assume otherwise. Sexual issues involve not just breaking the rules on 
fraternization and sexual relations, per se, but involve perceptions of 
favoritism in unit life which can negatively affect the cohesiveness, 
morale, and discipline that are the critical ingredients of success in 
military life, and success in combat. Whether one believes in equality 
among men and women is not the issue here. In the special world of 
military life where the ultimate mission of fighting and winning is 
uniquely different from all other environments and roles in civilian 
life, the issue is the national security of our nation and how best to 
maintain it with the most effective fighting force.
  There is no real reason for social experimentation in mixing the 
sexes at all levels of military life and functions. Certainly this does 
not mean women cannot be as successful as men in all or certainly most 
of the levels of work in the military. But this may only be true with 
two caveats. First, because women are not as a rule as physically able 
to meet harsh combat conditions, they start with a disadvantage. This 
reality is central to the consideration by the Marine Corps not to 
include women in infantry units. Second, the relations among the sexes 
present an irreducible diversion which complicates the effectiveness of 
combat units. The Marines train women and men separately as recruits, 
and have found that it works best for them. After initial recruit 
training, they are trained together, except for the unique function of 
combat training, since women do not serve in Marine infantry units.
  It is not at all clear to me that there is any body of evidence that 
a force trained on a gender-integrated basis performs better in combat 
than a force trained on a segregated basis. More to the essential 
point, there is no credible body of evidence showing that gender-
integrated combat forces, such as infantry forces, perform better than 
all male units. Before we extend our desire to treat women fairly and 
equally with men, a bedrock working principle of American society, we 
need to satisfy ourselves that the conditions under which men fight are 
actually conducive to fielding integrated units. Indeed, it would 
be folly to assume that the natural attractions, jealousies and 
diversions that close sexual quarters enhance can be overcome by 
issuing an edict that professionalism only will be permitted. It is 
quite clearly the case, as Aberdeen and other scandals indicate to me, 
that gender-integrated training is having a very bumpy ride, and we 
should review the kinds of integrated training that will work, and the 
kinds of gender-integrated training that will not work.

  Mr. President, there must be ways to thoroughly examine, review, and 
evaluate the reasons for the recent spate of scandals regarding sexual 
relations in training commands. Such a study should be made by an 
independent blue-ribbon body with unquestioned credentials--with no 
social agenda, but geared solely to the effect of gender integration at 
all levels of the military, in support as well as combat roles, in 
training recruits as well as seasoned soldiers--to evaluate the impacts 
solely on our national security. In the meantime, until such a review 
can be done and fully considered by the Congress, I intend to propose 
an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense 
authorization bill which would suspend the continuation of gender-
integrated recruit training in all the services, as is currently the 
case with regard to the Marine Corps.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________