[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5087-S5088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SEXES IN THE MILITARY
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the case of Air Force 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn
has highlighted the need for an independent review of gender relations
in the services.
[[Page S5088]]
First, I think the publicity about this case has served as an
understandable impetus for all of us to speak our minds on this issue.
That is, I think, useful, in that relations among the sexes in the
military obviously need a thorough, independent review in light of the
scandals that have emerged in recent months.
It is imperative though, that as we review the rules regarding gender
relations in the military, we keep our eye on the ball. The ball is
that the goal should always be the most effective, combat-ready,
disciplined, tough fighting force that the Nation can field.
Effectiveness, discipline, unit cohesion and morale cannot ever take a
second place to any other value, since the premier responsibility of
the military is the national security of our Nation. If gender
relations must take a back seat to that goal, that is as it should be.
In the case of Lieutenant Flinn, the military justice system has
tried to do its work, in spite of all the comment and publicity
attendant to this case. There is a question about whether the Secretary
of the Air Force should have granted Lieutenant Flinn a general
discharge in lieu of a court-martial. We all, I am sure, have opinions
about that. I personally feel that the charges of lying and disobeying
the order of a superior officer, never mind the charge of adultery,
which, of course, no one condones, merit a disciplinary decision, and
that the Secretary should not have granted her a general discharge in
light of those charges. That is my opinion. Other Senators may have
other views. However, I believe that the larger issue and perhaps the
root of the problem in this much publicized case may lie in the
military rules of fraternization. When it is permissible for members of
the opposite sex to socialize, live together, or otherwise fraternize,
varies considerably among the different services. The standards are
seriously inconsistent. I have indicated that I intend to offer an
amendment to the upcoming fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization
measure which would, if enacted, establish an independent outside
review commission to review the question of the appropriateness of
gender integrated recruit training in the services. I think such a
commission could review, as well, the rules of fraternization with the
goal of recommending a single consistent fraternization standard for
conduct among enlisted people, between enlisted people and officers,
and among officers, which spans all the services. What is appropriate
for a soldier in the Army should also be appropriate for a sailor or an
airman or a marine.
Mr. President, clearly we are in the middle of a national debate on
gender relations and on general conduct in the services, and the work
of an independent commission to review the many issues which have
arisen seems urgent, needed and very useful. In the meantime, I believe
that we politicians should refrain from urging particular decisions in
specific cases, and let the system work in the best way that it can
until an opportunity has been had to systematically review the rules
regarding gender relations and conduct in all of the services.
____________________