Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their reading en bloc.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Zeya nomination, postcloture; that the postcloture debate time expire at 11:30 a.m.; further, that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Su nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that if cloture is invoked on the Su nomination, all postcloture time expire at 2:30 p.m.; finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Moran.

Ms. GILLIBRAND

Ms. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise for the 15th time, today, to call for every Senator to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote for the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill would move serious crimes like sexual assault out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of the most capable people in the military: independent, impartial, highly trained prosecutors. I began calling for the full floor vote on May 25. That was about a month ago. In that month, an estimated 1,736 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious crimes. Many will not even report those crimes because they lack faith in the system where cases are decided by their commanders, not by trained lawyers. And yet this vote continues to be delayed and denied day after day, week after week. I have heard proponents of this bill argue that we can't make this change because the military lacks the lawyers necessary to carry out the work. Today, I would like to address this one unfounded claim. Let's look at the numbers. The Navy, for example, has an Active Duty population of just over 330,000 members. Their military justice system has 935 military lawyers, or judge advocates known as JAGs. That number includes more than 100 special litigators and 85 at the 06-level JAG, which means the colonel or above commanders. And last year, they completed just 78 general courts martial, which are usually cases involved in serious felonies that our bill discusses. Now, let's look at the civilian counterpart. Take the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. San Diego County has a population of 3.3 million people. To serve that population, the DA's office has just 300 prosecutors who handle 40,000 cases a year. So the Navy has one-tenth of the population but three times the lawyers. In total, our armed services have just over 1.3 million members and more than 4,000 JAGs. The issue with our military justice system is not that it lacks the lawyers. It is that it does not entrust the most serious crimes to the people who are most professional and trained to address them. In fiscal year 2020, the armed services completed 720 general courts martial, and in fiscal year 2019, they completed 895 general courts martial. If 300 prosecutors in San Diego County can handle 40,000 cases a year, I trust that more than 4,000 JAGs in our military, some of our Nation's best and brightest, can handle 895 general courts martial. I have trust in those military lawyers' ability to handle these cases because they are in fact already working on them. This reform would not give them more work. Instead, it would relieve them of the time- consuming work it takes to get a commander properly briefed on cases and allow them to make decisions on those cases instead of just making recommendations to commanders. In short, making this reform would not require finding a host of new lawyers to do this work or to overtax the lawyers our military already has. Any claims otherwise are nothing more than a delay tactic. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act will deliver results our servicemembers and their families deserve. It is supported by the experts, by servicemembers, and by a bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority of Senators, and it is time we bring this to the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate votes on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I also commend General Austin on his recommendations. He is the first Secretary of Defense in the last 10 years--in the last real 100 years--that has said that sexual assault and related crimes should be taken out of the chain of command, of which I agree completely. He has also acknowledged that it is not necessary for good order and discipline or command control that the convening authority be the commander. The convening authority can be the prosecutor, which is our bill. The reason why we advocate for a bright line is that while sexual assaults are handled poorly within the military, so are other crimes when it comes to racial disparity. We have evidence that has been detailed and reported by the Department of Defense that if you are a Black servicemember, you are up to 2.61 times more likely to be prosecuted or punished for crimes due to racial bias within the military justice system. So if we want a military justice system that is fair for everyone, both plaintiffs and defendants, we need a bright line around all serious crimes. I believe that if you allow trained military prosecutors the ability to review the case files for all serious crimes, more cases of sexual assaults will go forward and end in conviction, and then the bias that is seen in other cases will also be reduced. So for the chairman to say that there is no evidence that the command hasn't been doing a good job in other crimes, I would say that is not true. There is a great deal of evidence that there is racial bias in how our military justice system is used at the detriment to Black and Brown servicemembers. Second, I would like to say that the commission's recommendations are expansive and excellent, and we look forward to receiving those recommendations. Those recommendations may well require additional personnel and additional resources because they are across many lines, not just about prosecution. My bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Prevention Act, does not require more resources or more personnel because it is literally creating a bright line of felonies, and while those prosecutors are normally prosecuting those cases, the only change is they get to see the case file first. They get to make a judgment about whether there is enough evidence, and if there is not, it goes right back to the commander where it was. So I agree that General Austin's statements are important and meaningful. I agree that the commission's work is excellent, and I look forward to supporting them and turning them into law. But I disagree strongly that the broader reform of a bright line around felonies isn't needed because it is, and it shows in the prosecution of sexual assaults, and it shows in the racial disparity of convictions and prosecutions and nonjudicial punishment for Black servicemembers. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I rise for the 14th time to call for every Senator to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, which would ensure that servicemembers who have been subject to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. For nearly a decade, the DOD has argued that removing convening authority from command, as our bill does, would undermine military readiness and good order and discipline. But yesterday, our Secretary of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin endorsed the Independent Review Commission's recommendation that sexual assault and related crimes be moved from the chain of command to trained military prosecutors. It is historic. It is historic that we have, for the first time ever, a Secretary of Defense agreeing that good order and discipline does not rest on a commander deciding whether a case goes forward or not. But we have to remember that the limited changes he endorsed come from a panel that was only asked to look at one type of crime. They were specifically asked to look at ways to solve the problem of military sexual assault and harassment. They drilled down on those issues of sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and child abuse, and they agreed that all of those crimes must be taken out of the chain of command and put in the hands of specialized, highly trained military prosecutors. They see no conflict with making those changes and retaining command control. I remind my colleagues the mission we are tasked with is larger than the mission that the IRC was tasked with. Our job is to provide our servicemembers with a military justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices they make for our country every day. That is why our bill addresses the fundamental flaw in the military justice system that puts the fate of our servicemembers in the hands of commanders who often know both the accuser and the accused and are not trained lawyers. Our reform draws a bright line and moves all serious crimes, which can lead to serious consequences, to independent military prosecutors. Secretary Austin's endorsement of the IRC's reforms makes it clear that he understands what we understand--convening authority is not necessary for maintaining command control or for maintaining good order and discipline. Right now, 97 percent of commanders maintain good order and discipline without having convening authority for general court-martial. Only 3 percent, level 06 and above, have that unique authority. Our allies have drawn a similar bright line. They decided that in their military, serious crimes should be taken out of the chain of command and given to trained prosecutors. They have told us, through letters and testimony, that they saw no diminution in command control or good order and discipline. Good order and discipline rests not on the commander's ability to act as judge and jury but on their ability to do their job of instilling a culture of respect between servicemembers and instilling a command climate where these types of actions aren't tolerated. There is no reason to continue to subject servicemembers to a system where commanders, rather than trained military prosecutors, are deciding which cases go to trial. We must move decisions about whether to move forward on cases dealing with serious crimes to the most qualified, most highly trained person. That would be trained military prosecutors. That is all that our bill does. That is what the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act does. In addition to having a filibuster-proof support in the Senate, this is now a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. This morning, I stood with Congresswoman Speier, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Turner, and a bipartisan group of Members in the House as they introduced this version of the legislation. The bipartisan support we have in the House includes Republicans with years of military service--former JAGs, former commanders. We had a general from the Republican Party stand up and support that bill this morning. Not only do they understand the importance of having a military justice system that is impartial and highly trained but also the importance of command and what their role is. We have a great deal of bipartisan support. This type of bipartisan, bicameral support is rare. It speaks to the importance of this reform, the importance of us meeting our obligation to provide oversight of our military, and the importance of serving those who serve our country in uniform. This morning, we were also joined by the sisters of Vanessa Guillen. Her youngest sister Lupe talked about what happened to Vanessa. She said: ``The system that we have now failed my sister, [and] it's up to us to change [it].'' To change the system that failed Vanessa, moving just sex crimes out of the chain of command would not be enough. She was murdered. We must move all serious crimes, including murder, to independent, impartial military prosecutors. This morning, Lupe said: ``Someone will always have to suffer for someone to care--but that stops now and it stops with us.'' It is time for us to do the job right, to prove Lupe right. Our servicemembers, as Secretary Austin said, deserve nothing less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote proceed immediately.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise today for the 13th time to call for every Senator to have the opportunity to vote on a commonsense, bipartisan bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill would ensure that members of our military would get the justice and the justice system that their sacrifices deserve. We do not have time to delay. I began calling for a floor vote on this bill on May 24. That is 29 days ago. Since then, it is estimated that 1,624 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious crimes. Many of them will feel that there is no point in even reporting the crime because they have no faith in the current military justice system. That is because right now, if a servicemember reports a crime, the case and their fate will be put into a commander's hands. This bill argues, instead, that our servicemembers who are victims of serious crimes or who are accused of serious crimes should have those cases reviewed by an impartial, trained, military prosecutor. It does not say that commanders are removed from their responsibility with regard to the military justice system. It doesn't say that commanders are relieved of their responsibility of ensuring good order and discipline. Under this bill, commanders will still have the full array of tools to implement good order and discipline--counseling, restriction, confinement, protective orders, rank reduction, nonjudicial punishment, summary court-martial, and even special court- martial. None of these change under the law. In addition, under today's system, only 3 percent of commanders have the right to do convening authority for general court-martial. So the truth is, it is a small number of commanders who will be even affected by this legislation. But I can promise you, the view from the servicemembers will be significant because they will now see that if they are someone who has been assaulted or harassed or had any justice need, that the person reviewing the case would be highly trained and unbiased. And if you are a Black or Brown servicemember who is disproportionately punished under the current system, you would know that the decision maker was impartial, unbiased, and highly trained. This change is something that will help both victims of sexual assault and also defendants' rights. For serious crimes, we need both pieces of this puzzle, and this bill provides both. It will still allow commanders to take the administrative steps to send a message to their troops about what is or is not tolerated, and 97 percent of them have to do that every day without having convening authority for general court-martial. It will allow for victims and their families to get real justice. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act will deliver the results that our servicemembers and their families deserve without compromising command authority. That is what our allies have said. The UK, Germany, Israel, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada have all testified to our body in various hearings and various committees that they saw no diminution in command control and no diminution in the ability to prepare and train troops. The truth is that this is a reform whose time has come, and every minute we delay, we are not standing by our servicemembers. It is a change that has been supported by veterans groups across the country. Whether it is the Iraq and Afghanistan association of veterans, whether it is the Vietnam veterans association, whether it is the Foreign Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars, military veterans support this bill. This is a change whose time has come, and I request that we have a floor vote to decide this. Sixty-six Senators on a bipartisan basis support this. The committee has been addressing this issue for 8 years. We have already passed 250 smaller reforms, none of which has had a dent on the problem. It is time to do the reform that survivors have asked for and that veterans organizations support. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I disagree with the chairman because the service chiefs and commanders for the last 8 years have objected to any serious reform. In fact, they have said time and again ``Trust us. Trust us. We will get this right'' and have objected to any major reform. In fact, that is what they did anytime we tried to reform the military--they objected on the same basis, using the same words, when we tried to repeal don't ask, don't tell. They objected in the same way when we tried to allow women to get credit for being in combat. They objected in the same way when we integrated the military. So to hear these objections over and over again after the committee has studied this issue for 8 years and allowed 250 reforms to be put into the NDAA--all of which were OK by the DOD--just flies in the face of reality. The military has demanded sole responsibility of these cases for the 8 years that I have worked on this issue, and have they dented the problem? No. Sexual assaults were estimated at 20,000 by the military last they counted. Has the rate of cases going to trial increased? No. Has the rate of cases that have ended in conviction increased? No. So under no measurable has the DOD got a handle on this. For the chairman to say it has to go through the committee, this issue has been going through the committee for 8 years. In fact, when I passed bipartisan reform with people like Senator Joni Ernst on the safe to report language, it was taken out in conference by the same DOD staff who didn't want it in there in the first place. So under the chairman's view, this bill could certainly go through committee. We have more than half of the members. But I promise you, it will be watered down or taken out in conference because the chairman and the ranking member are against it, and they have the authority to do so. So he is not offering a fair process. The fact that this bill has 66 cosponsors--how many bills in America, in this body, have the support of Ted Cruz and Liz Warren, of Mitch McConnell and Senator Schumer? None. This is the kind of bipartisan bill that this country is yearning for, the kind of commonsense reform that can protect servicemembers. While the chairman is so interested in supporting what the generals and the admirals and the top commanders want, why does he not listen to the servicemembers themselves, to the people who have suffered sexual assault, to the people who have suffered racial bias in prosecution? Those are the people he should be listening to, not the top brass. We have deferred to them the entire 10 years I have been on this committee, and in the entire 10 years, our committee has failed. It is time to bring this bill to the floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, it is very kind the chairman notes that the last time we got a vote in committee was 2013. We have been asking for a vote on this for the last 8 years, asking for the last 5 years to get a floor vote and been denied. This bill has been routinely and roundly filibustered and opposed by the chairman and the ranking member for the entire 8 years that I have been working on this bill. And this bicameral bill, that has 66 Senate cosponsors, should not be relegated by a committee that will communicate with the DOD behind the scenes. That is what they do. That is what they have been doing. This is not a bill related to a technical aspect of warfighting that would benefit from the expertise found within the DOD. It is a check on the commander's power that has allowed a culture to flourish, where two and three victims do not feel comfortable coming forward to report their assault and 64 percent--a number that is stubbornly unchanged-- experience retaliation when they do come forward. Moreover, a majority of the Members already cosponsor this bill so it is unclear what expertise the committee will add. It will only create an opportunity for the DOD to water down this much needed reform. As a military law expert, Brenner Fissell wrote today in The Hill, ``An institution with the power to kill people and topple governments should not resist our elected Senators' clear will, cheering as a procedural loophole allows a small minority to prevent popular forms from being implemented.'' Mr. President, this is the 12th time that I have risen to ask for unanimous consent for a very simple reason: The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act deserves a vote. The people in the military deserve a military justice system worthy of their sacrifice. We don't have time to delay. Every day that we delay a vote on this, more servicemembers are being sexually assaulted and raped. I started this request for unanimous consent 28 days ago. Since then, an estimated 1,568 servicemembers have been raped or sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious crimes, and most of them will feel that there is no point in even reporting the crime because they have no faith in the current military justice system. That system asks commanders, not lawyers, to decide whether cases go forward. The lack of faith is understandable. Less than 1 in 10 sexual assault cases that are considered for command action are actually sent to trial, and just a small fraction of those end in conviction. In the 8 years that we have been fighting for this reform, further fault lines in the military justice system have been made evident, including deeply troubling racial disparities. It is a disappointment that the chairman is not here to hear this information himself. In 2017, a report found Black servicemembers were as much as 2.61 times more likely to have disciplinary action taken against them as their White counterparts. In 2019, the GAO found Black and Hispanic servicemembers were more likely than White servicemembers to be subjected to criminal investigation and to face general and special courts-martial. Those statics show a clear and pressing need to address what appears to be inherent bias in the current command-controlled system. To provide our servicemembers with real justice, we must move all serious crimes out of the chain of command. This bill will do that by making a simple but critical change to the way the military justice system handles serious crime. It streamlines how cases move forward. Instead of commanders, who have zero formal legal training, making the decision to prefer or refer cases to trial, this bill gives those legal decisions to highly trained, impartial, professional military justice lawyers. It allows the commander to continue to work hand in hand with judge advocates to implement good order and discipline in their unit. The bill really comes down to one thing: Is there enough evidence to move this case forward? We should not put that responsibility on commanders, who often know both the accused and the accuser and do not have legalized training to be able to make these decisions properly. When it comes to serious crimes that can lead to long, more-than-a-year sentences, that decision should be made by a legal expert. That is the change the bill would make. It is tailored, it is simple, and it is an elegant solution to meet a very real problem. Commanders still have lots of power. They have the ability to enact nonjudicial punishment, which allows them to set the tone for their troops and maintain good order and discipline. They will still have the ability to put people on restriction and in confinement. They still have the ability to issue protective orders. These are the basic tools that commanders rely on to implement good order and discipline, not general courts-martial. If a serious crime is not preferred and then referred by the JAG convening authority, it goes right back to the commander, who can choose to do several things. He can do nothing. He can carry out nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation. He can pursue summary or special court-martial. However, this change, despite its simplicity and despite being a very small change, will create a seismic shift in how the military justice system is perceived by both servicemembers who have been subjected to sexual assault and by Black and Brown servicemembers who have been subjected to bias. We need a professionalized military justice system so that everyone, from survivors to defendants, can have more trust in the current process--a process that is based on evidence and legal facts and that cases will be decided impartially. That is the system our servicemembers deserve and is the system that we create by the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. We have tried every small ball effort you can imagine. The Presiding Officer has been on that committee for years. You watched us pass every type of reform that the DOD is OK with. This is the one they have fought tooth and nail to prevent implementation of, and even today, our chairman wants to narrow it down and reduce it to a very small size-- one crime, one crime only. Well, let's just look at the facts. The Vanessa Guillen case was a murder case. Under the chairman's own analysis, he would not have allowed that case to go forward through the review of a special, trained military prosecutor. In fact, her case may never have seen the light of day. That is a problem. So we need to treat all serious crimes the same. We have compromised on this bill. We carved out all the serious crimes that are military in nature--going AWOL, not following a direct command, anything that the commander would have a special purview over--but we draw a bright line at the rest of those serious crimes, and that is a good solution. It is what our allies have already done-- UK, Israel, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia--and they saw no diminution in command control. We need to build a military justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices that the men and women in our armed services make every day. I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the recess.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise again to call for this entire body to vote and consider the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This commonsense reform would ensure that people in the U.S. military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice that they deserve. I began calling for the full floor vote on this bill on May 24. That was 24 days ago. Since then, an estimated 1,344 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. Two in three of those survivors will not even report it because they know that they are more likely to face retaliation than receive justice. This is a scourge that we have been looking at for over 8 years. We have passed nearly 250 measures to address sexual assault in the military, to address retaliation, to address prevention, and none of them have dented the numbers. In fact, our estimated cases are at about 20,000 cases, and among those, only about 200 have gone to courts- martial and ended in conviction. It is not enough. We aren't moving the numbers in the right direction. They are, in fact, going in the wrong direction. We also have a reform that we have looked at for 8 years. It creates a bright line at all serious crimes to handle two issues: one, the bias we see in sexual assault in the military; that if you are a servicemember who reports sexual assault, it is unlikely that you will get justice, and it is likely that you will be retaliated against. And after we have made retaliation a crime three times in a row, we have only seen one court-martial for retaliation. That is outrageous. And so now is the time that we bring this measure to the floor. It does not cost a lot of money. It is something that uses the existing infrastructure, the existing lawyers, the existing infrastructure around the lawyers. Two, it does not take a long time to implement because, in fact, after the military police complete their investigation and have their recommendation, basically, they send that recommendation to the prosecutor, as opposed to the commander. So after the review by the prosecutor, it goes right back to the commander if that prosecutor declines to prosecute. So, ultimately, it changes the system in a very small but powerful way, and the reason why this change is recommended by all military experts is three reasons: One, the bright line creates a justice system for all plaintiffs and all defendants. And since we have bias with regard to women in the military and we have bias with regard to Black and Brown servicemembers, this change will remove bias and professionalize the system for everyone. Second, our allies have done this. Our allies have done it--UK, Israel, Germany, Australia, Netherlands. They have done it over the last 40 years for defendants' rights, to make sure we have a system that is fair to everyone. When they put this change in place, they reported to our panel that, No. 1, they saw no diminution in command control; and, No. 2, they saw no undermining of good order and discipline. So for those reasons, that is why we need to pursue this legislation, a bright line. And then, last is the question that the chairman always raises, that this must go through the committee. The committee has been looking at this for 8 years. We have had multiple hearings on this topic. We have had the data. We have talked about it with every service Secretary for the last decade I have been on the committee. We have talked about it with each of the services for the last decade that I have been on the committee, and we have tried to get a vote on this measure, unsuccessfully, for the past 5 years. We have been denied a vote every time in the last 5 years. So to say now that only the committee can have jurisdiction is not true. They have had their chance, and they have passed close to 250 measures. Those measures have not moved the needle. Those measures are ones that the DOD was comfortable with. They have never wanted this measure. Now we have agreement by the chairman, by this panel, by many of the service Secretaries that, OK, fine, we are with you; we will take sexual assault out of the chain of command. While that is good, it is not enough because it will create two systems of justice, and you should not privilege just one set of plaintiffs to have a positive, professional, unbiased system. And given all of the data we have about race and bias against Black servicemembers and Brown servicemembers being punished up to 2.5 times more than White servicemembers, you need to fix the system for everybody. So back to the argument of our allies, that is why they did their bright line at serious crimes--the equivalent of felonies--so that they could have a justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices that the men and women in our armed services make. So I ask once again that we can have a vote on this floor. We now have 66 cosponsors of this legislation, widely bipartisan. How many bills in this Chamber are supported by Liz Warren and Ted Cruz at the same time? How many pieces of legislation have been voted on by both Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell? Very few. But the reason we have such bipartisan support is we have two female command veterans in this body. One is a Republican, Joni Ernst. One is a Democrat, Tammy Duckworth. They are both on this legislation. They have served as commanders, and they understand the importance of the commander's roles. But they also have seen that nothing has gotten better. They saw the report from Fort Hood that said the command climate was so toxic that it was permissible for sexual assault and sexual harassment. And so they have said enough is enough. And so when you have so many former commanders and sexual assault survivors from this Chamber supporting this legislation, it is time that it does not need to go through the committee. More than half of our committee supports this. But when we take issues like this to the committee, they have been taken out in conference. Despite winning the vote in the Senate, despite winning the vote in the House, our bill in 2019 to make sure that a servicemember could come forward and not be prosecuted for minor related offenses, like drinking or being off base--that bill passed in the Senate, passed in the House, and was taken out in conference because the DOD didn't like it. So I promise you, if we pass this bill in our committee, in the House and the Senate--I promise you--it would be narrowed just down to sexual assault because that is what the DOD will agree to. I am tired of doing only what the DOD will agree to. It is not our job to defer to the DOD. It is our job as U.S. Senators to provide oversight and accountability over the administration and over the entire Department of Defense. When we abdicate that responsibility, what we have is what we had for the last 10 years, failure--failure in the committee because we only put forward items the DOD was comfortable with. I just don't know how much longer we want survivors to have to wait. We have considered this legislation together. We have, every year, sat down, discussed it--pros, cons. Are other reforms working? I have done that with every one of the 100 Senators in this Chamber every year for the last 10 years. It has been intensely considered, and I spend an extra amount of time with committee members because they are interested. So this is not new. It doesn't need to go through the committee. We have been denied a vote and filibustered a vote for 8 years and denied a vote for the last 5 years. So I don't know why the committee gets sole jurisdiction. I don't understand. And, again, how many measures does this Chamber have that have 66 cosponsors? It is also a generational shift. And when you have something of such import, it comes to the floor. We repealed don't ask, don't tell on the floor. We had two floor votes. The majority leader at the time gave us those votes, and it passed on the floor. It did not go through the committee. It is time to bring a justice system that is worthy of the sacrifice that the men and women make every day. And you need to have that bright line so it is a justice system that works for women and servicemembers of color because right now we have data and evidence that there is bias against those individuals. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, two issues: First, the op-ed by Jeh Johnson was not in reference to my legislation. In fact, he conflated my legislation with recommendations from the IRC. He mentioned lawyers in Virginia having to make the decisions. That is not what my bill says. It has never said that, and it is not how it is organized. In fact, my bill is organized by services to adjudicate these cases, as they are doing today. Right now, prosecutors prosecute these cases, and the decision making of whether to proceed to trial would be given to them in the first instance. If they decline to prosecute, it goes right back to the commander. So, for example, if there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the case, it would go back to the commander, who could then use a special court-martial or he could use nonjudicial punishment for related or lesser offenses. That is typically what the commanders do in these cases. So very little changes. But what does change is the perception of the victim who is asking for unbiased review by someone who is highly trained to do that review. It also gives assurance to defendants' rights that the person making the decision is unbiased and is highly and professionally trained. Those changes change everything. It changes the perception that our military justice is blind, fair, and professional. And that is not the impression of servicemembers today. Both women and men and survivors of sexual assault do not believe that justice is possible for them, and Black and Brown servicemembers do not believe the justice system is fair to them either. This solution makes sense, and I do not think that we should defer again our responsibility to one op-ed by one former SecDef. That is not our job, and that is not how we should be responding.

Mr. GILLIBRAND

Mr. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. subcommittee on Emerging Threads and Spending Oversight The Subcommittee on Emergng Threads and Spending Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their votes on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. I have been calling for a full vote on the floor on this bill since May 24. That was 23 days ago. Since then, an estimated 1,288 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. Two in three of the survivors will not even report it because they know they are more likely to face retaliation than to receive justice. Today I want to share the story of the kind of offender our bill would address. On March 30 of this year, SSG Randall Hughes pled guilty to a series of rapes dating back to 2006 that he committed while the Army looked the other way. Staff Sergeant Hughes was only brought to justice after his brave daughter decided to come forward. Had the Army prosecuted him the first time one of his victims had come forward, his daughter may have been spared. At a Super Bowl party in 2017, Staff Sergeant Hughes fed drinks to his host, a soldier under his care, until the host passed out. He then approached his host's wife while she was outside the house. He propositioned her for sex, and when she refused, he forced himself on her against their grill outside their house and then dragged her inside their house, where he raped her--all while the husband was passed out in the next room. The survivor hid in her bathroom until she could report the ordeal to CID the next day. CID took a year to investigate a relatively straightforward rape allegation. The command did nothing to expedite the investigation or hold CID's feet to the fire. CID determined that the allegations were credible, but the command did nothing. Instead of prosecuting him, the command put Staff Sergeant Hughes on the sergeant first class promotion list. Hopeless, the survivor asked that something, anything, be done. The command reacted by putting an administrative remark in his record. Staff Sergeant Hughes was transferred to a new duty station, Fort Dix. While at Fort Dix, after years of sexual abuse, his daughter bravely came forward to report that abuse. CID at Fort Dix then noticed the administrative remark in his record from the previous rape and began making inquiries. They learned he had raped two other women and physically abused his wife. The command had every tool available to stop Staff Sergeant Hughes from his serial rapes, including the abuse of his own daughter, but instead they turned a blind eye and did nothing. Even after he admitted to his crime and pled guilty, the Army offered a plea deal of 13 years of confinement--13 years of confinement despite sexually assaulting three women, including a minor. This serial offender avoided justice for 15 years. Even when the command was forced to administer justice, he received a sentence less than we would give a drug offender. This case is why we need a professional military justice system worthy of the sacrifices the men and women in our military make every day. Having leadership at the top that truly cares and that is truly passionate about prosecuting sexual abuse will have repercussions down the chain. Our bill does exactly this. We have 66 Senators who have cosponsored this bill. It deserves a vote on the floor. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. As you heard from the chairman of the committee, he only intends on taking one crime out of the chain of command, and that is sexual assault. And the reason why that is so problematic is, No. 1, it will continue to undermine women in the military, marginalize them and isolate them, creating a ``pink court'' that all legal experts have agreed would be highly ineffective and would harm the military justice system. Second, our allies have already made this move. They have taken all serious crimes out of the chain of command and given it to trained military prosecutors in the UK, Israel, Germany, Netherlands, and Australia. In those instances, they did it specifically for defendants' rights. And we have a similar problem in this country because right now we have a great deal of racial bias in who gets punished. If you are Black or Brown in the U.S. military today, you are 2.5 times more likely to be punished. And most commanders are White commanders. There is further data that shows most Black and Brown servicemembers have either experienced or witnessed racism within the ranks. If we want to fix this criminal justice system, you need a bright line, and it should be at all serious crimes. That is how we fix the military justice system. That is how we give justice to sexual assault survivors. And for the chairman to say today that it would cost too much money or that they don't have sufficient resources or sufficient lawyers, it isn't true. And those are the same arguments that were used over the last 8 years about excluding sexual assault from the chain of command as well. So I don't think these are legitimate arguments. I think they are brought up year after year as just a way to put an impediment in front of the reform that is needed to fix the system. I now yield the floor to my colleague Senator Grassley.