[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9540-S9541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY RELATIONSHIPS: NEW MARCHING ORDERS FROM THE PENTAGON

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, I took the Senate floor to call 
attention to reports that the Secretary of Defense was prepared to 
offer a proposal that would ease the penalties for adultery in the 
military. The report set off alarm bells in my own mind because moral 
responsibility in the military cannot be compromised without 
undermining the core values of the services --values such as honor, 
integrity, and loyalty.
  As a result of my remarks, Secretary Cohen called me at home on 
Sunday--I believe it was Sunday--to assure me that he had no intention 
of watering down the Defense Department's policies concerning adultery 
and fraternization. In fact, he said, the new rules he was considering 
would strengthen those policies.
  I appreciate the seriousness with which Secretary Cohen views this 
matter, and I applaud his efforts to come to grips with policies that 
have precipitated uneven treatment of military personnel and have 
resulted in morale-damaging charges of double standards.
  The proposed new Pentagon policies were announced earlier this week, 
and I commend Secretary Cohen for upholding the military code of 
justice and resisting pressure to reduce the penalties for adultery. I 
wish I could have confidence that the new policies are sufficient and 
will fulfill Secretary Cohen's intent of ensuring even-handed treatment 
of adultery in the military. Unfortunately, I fear that the new 
policies fall short of the mark in that respect. Moreover, I fear that 
these new guidelines send conflicting signals to commanders in the 
field: Yes, on the one hand, adultery is still a crime in the military; 
but no, on the other hand, it will not be criminally prosecuted unless 
it is so flagrant that it disrupts or discredits the military.
  I fear that some could read into these guidelines a message to the 
troops that lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get 
caught. I do not for a moment believe that that is the message the 
Defense Department intends to communicate.
  The stated intent of the new policies is to standardize good order 
and discipline policies among the Services, and to clarify guidance on 
the offense of adultery under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 
the case of fraternization, the new guidelines seem clear cut--they 
will impose a military-wide

[[Page S9541]]

ban on fraternization, bringing the Army into line with the 
fraternization policies currently enforced by the Navy, Air Force, and 
yes, the good old Marine Corps.
  The impact of the guidelines as they apply to the handling of 
adultery cases in the military is where the message gets muddled. The 
new guidelines, according to the Pentagon, do not change the Uniform 
Military Code of Justice. They do not lower the standards of conduct 
demanded of America's military forces. They do not preclude a court 
martial or dishonorable discharge for adultery. That's what the 
guidelines don't do. What they do accomplish, in my opinion, is much 
harder to quantify.
  Under these guidelines, adultery would remain a crime in the 
military, but it would only be criminally prosecuted if it brought 
discredit to the military or disrupted the good order and discipline of 
the armed services. That caveat, while currently an element of proof of 
the offense of adultery under the Uniform Military Code of Justice, is 
given added weight and emphasis under the new guidelines.
  Now, I have been accused, from time to time, of being old-fashioned, 
strait-laced, and of wearing 19th century clothes and a stickler for 
the rules and a stickler for propriety. I plead guilty on all counts, 
other than the 19th century business with respect to my clothing, but I 
do not believe that one has to be old-fashioned to recognize that 
adultery is a dishonorable act that intrinsically brings discredit to 
the offending party and, in the case of the military, to the uniform 
that he or she wears. I do not believe that honor and integrity 
anywhere, especially in the military, have ever gone out of fashion. 
And I do not believe that one has to be strait-laced to recognize that 
lying, cheating, and deceiving--all elements of adultery--intrinsically 
subvert good order and discipline.
  Yet it seems to me that these guidelines shift the emphasis of 
adultery in the military from the crime to the consequences. Rather 
than clarifying the offense of adultery, it seems to me that these 
guidelines confuse the issue. What constitutes ``discredit to the armed 
forces'' if not a crime--and adultery is a crime in the military? What 
constitutes the disruption of ``good order and discipline'' if not 
lying, cheating, and deceiving in the commission of a crime?
  Honor, integrity, and decency are universal values and principles. 
They are absolute. They do not fade with the passing of time or cease 
to matter behind closed doors. When a person takes an oath before God 
and country, as the military do, that oath is taken without 
qualification or reservation. It is not limited by time or place or who 
knows about it.
  Mr. President, I believe that Secretary Cohen is dedicated to 
maintaining the high standards of the United States military. I know 
that he has put a great deal of time, thought, and effort into 
restoring consistency to the application of the military code of 
conduct. I commend him for his efforts, and I urge him to continue 
working on this extremely important and sensitive aspect of military 
service.
  The men and women who serve in the United States military are 
remarkable individuals. They willingly endure the hardships that 
military life imposes on them and their families. They willingly 
sacrifice personal freedoms for the good of the nation. They willingly 
take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend this great nation, with 
their lives if necessary.
  For the life of me, I cannot square that level of total commitment 
with official guidelines whose recommended remedies for the crime of 
adultery include ``counseling'' or ``an adverse fitness report.''
  I cannot square the core values of the United States military with a 
guidance regarding adultery that appears to encourage commanding 
officers to overlook the crime of adultery if it is ``remote in time.''
  Mr. President, how remote is remote? What kind of clarity does that 
guidance impart? Is last month remote enough in time to avoid a 
criminal prosecution for adultery? How about last week--is that enough?
  Last month? Last year? Would this ``clarification'' have salvaged Air 
Force General Joseph Ralston's nomination to be Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff? Would this guideline let Army Major General David Hale 
off the hook for abruptly retiring while he was under investigation for 
alleged sexual misconduct?
  Is discretion what we are really talking about here? Do these 
guidelines send a signal to our troops that the crime of adultery is 
not really that bad as long as you are discrete and don't disrupt your 
unit? Are we giving a whole new meaning to the sentiment, ``The better 
part of valor is discretion''?
  I do not for a moment believe that this is Secretary Cohen's intent. 
I do not for a moment believe that our Nation's military leadership 
wishes to erode the standards of conduct for the military. But I do 
express a warning that these guidelines, well-intentioned though they 
may be, will not solve any problems. These guidelines will not erase 
the perception that the military applies a double standard to senior 
officers and enlisted personnel. And most important, these guidelines 
will not strengthen the necessary trust and cohesiveness that help to 
make America's military forces the finest in the world--we think.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________