Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment with Senator Wicker. And this is about just giving basic safety regulations to those superlong, stretch limousines. The reason why Senator Schumer and I care about this, there was a horrible, horrible incident in Upstate New York, in Schoharie, where 20 people were killed. In that 1 limousine, 17 passengers: 4 young women from the same family--a mom lost 4 daughters--and 2 recently married couples. They hired the limousine to go safely to a birthday party. This cannot continue. And I yield to Senator Wicker.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 308, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 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 rise once again to call for every Senator to have the chance to vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. It is time for us to move serious crimes, like sexual assault and murder, out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of the most capable people in the military to do this: independent, impartial, highly trained uniformed prosecutors. I want to first acknowledge and express my gratitude to my colleagues on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel who recognize the importance of this legislation and this morning voted to include it as an amendment to the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee markup of the NDAA. The reason we are calling for this reform is because our current system is just not working for our servicemembers. It is not delivering justice on the values of justice and equality that they have sacrificed so much to defend. We are here to serve them. Any reform that we should make should be made with their best interests in mind. So while I am glad that so many of our colleagues are now looking for ways to help survivors of sexual assault in the military, we must help them by starting to listen to them and what they are saying about the justice they want delivered. If we move just sexual assault and related crimes out of the chain of command, we are ignoring the voices of the very people whom we are trying to help. Survivors have asked for all serious crimes to be taken out of the chain of command. They have told us time and time again that they do not want to be further isolated, further diminished, by being given special treatment. They do not want to have a separate judicial system. The request is clear: Do not create a pink court, a court that will be perceived by other servicemembers as only serving women. While we know that many sexual assault survivors are men, the perception in the military will be reality, and it will be seen as marginalizing and minimizing women servicemembers. It is our obligation to listen to the men and women we are serving and to do our job. Creating a bifurcated system will not only silence survivors' voices; it will silence the voices of the enlisted servicemembers who have asked us to provide basic fairness. Our servicemembers recognize that, intentionally or not, a commander who knows both the accuser and the victim cannot remove bias from decision making. Our servicemembers have told us that they lack faith in the current system, which leaves serious crimes and, potentially, serious sentences with commanders who are not trained lawyers. We have to listen to the men and women in uniform who have asked us to ensure that their cases will be decided by an independent, highly trained military prosecutor if they are going to face prosecution that can lead to more than a year of confinement I ask my colleagues who are in favor of moving just sexual assault and related crimes out of the chain of command: Why should some crimes be handled by better lawyers than others? Don't we want all serious crimes to be given serious consideration by a JAG with criminal justice experience? Don't all of our servicemembers deserve a professionalized judicial system? As Senator Hawley, a former prosecutor, this morning in our subcommittee hearing, said: [W]hen we have service men and women who have had serious crimes committed against them--felony crimes, as are addressed in this bill--it is absolutely imperative that: justice is done to these men and women, is done for them; that the procedures and standards that they can expect are uniform and predictable; [and] that trained military prosecutors make the final call as to whether or not . . . these cases will go forward for prosecution. And the reason for that is we want the evidence to be weighed by the prosecutor--the individual, the woman or the man--who is going to be presenting this to a jury, to a judge in the system. . . . That's a predictable system. I think it is one that both defendants and victims can support because the rules are uniform--it's across the board, it's is analogous to our civilian system but still, of course, stays within the military system of justice. Many of our colleagues brought renewed attention to the need for military justice after the tragic murder of SPC Vanessa Guillen. Her case shows us that a bifurcated system that leaves some crimes with prosecutors and some crimes with commanders will not deliver justice. Specialist Guillen was sexually harassed by one soldier and then murdered by another. If we remove just sexual assault and related crimes from the chain of command, only her harasser's case would be handled by a prosecutor. Her murderer's case would not. It would be left in the hands of the same command that so deeply mishandled her case that her murderer was able to flee the base and end his own life. Her family, as a consequence, will never have justice. We have heard from voices inside the Pentagon who have resisted this change for far too long. We cannot let them continue to drown out the voices of the people in the military justice system whom they are supposed to serve. We must listen to the voices of the enlisted. They have asked us to make this reform and to put all serious crimes in the hands of highly trained, impartial, professional military prosecutors. That is what the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act would do. Every day it is delayed is another day our servicemembers' voices are silenced. It is time to listen to them and bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. 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 that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, my colleague has made some serious misstatements and allegations in his remarks. I never said White commanders are racist, nor would I ever. In fact, all I have done is cite 3 years of evidence published by the Department of Defense about disparities in sentencing and punishment, with the Marines, for example, having 2.61 times more likely to be punished for Black servicemembers versus White servicemembers. It is DOD data. It is DOD information. As the Senator knows, this bill was written 8 years ago, and the reason it was written with a bright line was for three reasons. The first is that our allies already have done this. They created a bright line of felonies for both plaintiffs' and defendants' rights-- the UK, Israel, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Australia. They did this because they believed servicemembers deserve basic civil liberties. The commander is not a trained lawyer. They thought a trained military prosecutor should make those decisions for serious crimes. We were told by every military justice expert available that to do anything less than a bright line would be a terrible disservice to the UCMJ, that bright lines work, that bright lines are necessary, and that having the bright line be a punishment of more than a year would serve the servicemembers better. Second, we heard from servicemembers, particularly female servicemembers. And I know there is a lot of mansplaining in this body, but Joni Ernst is the only female combat commander Republican in this body. Tammy Duckworth is the only female combat veteran Democrat in this body. They helped to write this legislation, and when they wrote it, they said this: They said women in the military are often marginalized, and the perception, dear colleague, is that although men are sexually assaulted, more often than not, it is the women who come forward. More often than not, they will associate a sexual assault procedure and process that is unique to be specialized treatment. Joni Ernst is not only a combat veteran, she is also a sexual assault survivor. So I don't think you can put yourself in her shoes, nor should you try to. This is legislation that she worked hard over the last 6 years with me on to tailor it, to narrow it. Bar fights are excluded specifically because Joni Ernst knows as a commander that bar fights are prevalent, and we don't want to have to deal with bar fights when we are talking about serious felonies. They are carved out. They are carved out as to all military crimes. The reason why this bright line of felonies protects servicemembers is because--you know this, dear colleague. You know that in domestic violence cases, often other serious crimes are at play. We have a case where a boyfriend and girlfriend--the girlfriend breaks up with the boyfriend, and he shoots her dead. Her case would not be taken to a special commander--excuse me--a special prosecutor because she was murdered. Vanessa Guillen. Her case would not have the benefit of a special prosecutor because she was murdered. We have another case just published last week, a domestic violence case where a servicemember is beating his wife. A neighbor hears the screams and intervenes to try to protect her. The servicemember shoots the neighbor, who is killed. The commander decides that that is a stand-your-ground case, and he decides not to prosecute, and all that happens is that servicemember is moved. He is moved. So the next time he is beating his wife and she finally reports, that evidence of the murder isn't even in his case file. It is nowhere to be found. So they don't protect her. She doesn't get special review. You need other serious crimes to be part of this; otherwise, they won't necessarily get the proper review. I know that you don't want to include serious crimes like check fraud or stealing or arson because you are like, what does this have to do with sexual assault? The truth is, in many cases of domestic violence, arson is used to cover up the crime. In many cases, when you have a domestic violence victim, 99 percent of them, their spouse or their partner used money as a way to isolate them. They use it to create dominance. They will steal her money. They will steal her credit card. If you don't have a specialized prosecutor look at the case, the commander might say: You took her checkbook; stop doing that. That is ridiculous. He won't even know this is something that happens in domestic violence cases all the time. There are a lot of reasons. We wrote it this way because the military experts told us. The issue of race has come up recently because the DOD started taking data. But the Air Force, you must know, started taking data about 20 years ago. In 1972, the Nixon administration had a task force specifically about this issue and found disparities. All we have done is cited the disparities as confirmation that if you fix the whole system, maybe you can fix other problems too. But make no mistake, it was written this way initially specifically to end sexual violence. This Commission that President Biden asked for and Secretary Austin supports, every crime they looked at, every single one, they took and said it had to be taken out of the chain of command, not just sexual assault but sexual harassment, domestic violence, child abuse, trafficking of children, all of these related things. They looked at these and said these kinds of cases all need to be taken out. They didn't look at murder. They didn't look at the other serious crimes because it wasn't their mission. I stand ready to work with you, Senator Sullivan, on a bipartisan, commonsense solution, but to say that just because you have the chairman and the ranking member, that somehow you have the moral authority here--I disagree. I disagree because we have 66 Members on this bill and another 5 or 6 who would vote for this. So that is about 70 Members who have stated they want to do this bright line. I have been very forthright with every Senator whom I have spoken to about why this bill is written the way it is. We don't want to marginalize women. We don't want them to be perceived as getting special treatment. We just want to professionalize the whole system. I can tell you, when we talk to commanders who are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they have to do the analysis of a highly complex crime, it distracts them from the work of training troops and winning wars. So why not give these hard issues, just the felonies, to the smartest military prosecutor we can find? Why not fix the system for all plaintiffs and all defendants? Why just draw out just one set of plaintiffs and one set of defendants? I know this will not undermine good order and discipline because Secretary Austin said, taking out sexual assault-related crimes does not undermine good order and discipline; it does not undermine command and control. When asking the Chairwoman of this Commission whether taking out serious crimes would undermine command and control, she said absolutely not. So I believe this is the right answer. I have believed it was the right answer for 8 years. Every year, I have asked my colleagues to look at the bill, study the bill, give me questions on the bill. When colleagues have wanted to shave off crimes because they thought they didn't rise to the level of a serious crime, like a bar fight, we have taken it out. We took out all military crimes because the commander has a unique understanding of those crimes. We have worked so hard for 8 years to do this one solution, and to imply that it is all new or it is only about this one set of data is so inappropriate and wrong. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I just want to thank the Senator and my colleague for his tireless work on this issue, and I do stand ready to work with him because I know how much he cares about the issue. He has led great reforms in his State of Alaska, and I believe, if his voice were lent to this issue, it would be unanimous. So I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague from Alaska.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 307, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 21; 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; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Jenkins nomination; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Abruzzo nomination; that the cloture vote on the Jenkins nomination occur immediately upon disposition of the Abruzzo nomination; that if cloture is invoked on the Jenkins 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 291.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam 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 Rubio.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise again--again--to call for every Senator to have a chance to vote on our bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. It is time to move the most serious crimes like sexual assault and murder out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of the most capable people in the military--independent, impartial, highly trained uniformed prosecutors. This is an issue that deserves urgency. I have been calling for a full floor vote since May 24. Since that time, an estimated 3,136 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted and more will have been victims of other serious crimes. While I am heartened to see, after many years of pushing for reform, that growing numbers of our colleagues, the Department of Defense, and the President have acknowledged that we must move sexual assault and related crimes like sexual violence out of the chain of command, it is simply not enough. I ask my colleagues to consider what it truly means to have special victim prosecutors looking only at cases of sexual assault and related crimes. It means that all the myriad crimes that are often linked to special victims' cases will get left out and pushed into a system that is not trained to see them for what they are. Let's just take a simple case of a forged check. Say a soldier takes his girlfriend's checkbook and forges her name. If a commander looks at that, they are likely to take that at face value, see it as a simple, cut-and-dried case of someone stealing money from someone else, and move forward with nonjudicial punishment. If a military prosecutor was to look at that same case, they might see something entirely different. That is because prosecutors are trained to see linkages between crimes. They are taught to ask different questions. So when they see a forged check, they ask: Is there more happening here? And there usually is. Research has shown that financial abuse occurs in 99 percent of domestic violence cases. Financial abuse can be the means by which an abuser gains control in a relationship, and it is often the main reason a survivor stays with their abuser. While a prosecutor who has worked on cases of both financial crimes and domestic violence would know that, a commander wouldn't likely know. The truth is, the realities of intimate partner violence go far beyond sexual assault and harassment. It can include forging checks and carrying out other forms of financial fraud, as well as other serious crimes. We know that child endangerment can be linked to domestic violence and intimate partner violence, as can kidnapping. Arson can be the tool of someone attempting to cover up these crimes. And murder, manslaughter, and murder of a pregnant woman can be, and often are, the final, tragic culmination of domestic violence. When these types of crimes are presented to commanders, they may be just the tip of an iceberg--the tip of an iceberg of cases that we all agree should be handled by a special prosecutor. So if we truly want to help survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, we have to acknowledge that some of those crimes don't happen in a vacuum. We must remove all serious crimes out of the chain of command and into the hands of trained prosecutors who have the education, training, and experience that these cases require and that our servicemembers deserve. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act does exactly that, and it is supported by the major veterans service organization groups, as well as groups like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which recognize the true impact of this reform. It is also supported by a bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority of Senators who should be allowed the opportunity to cast their vote. Madam President, 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 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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise again today to call for every Senator to have the opportunity to cast their vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. It is time for us to look at this issue to move serious crimes like sexual assault and murder out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of well-trained military prosecutors who are independent, impartial, and highly trained uniformed prosecutors. This is an issue that deserves urgency. I began calling for this full floor vote on May 24. Since then, it is an estimate that 2,912 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted during that time; more will have been victims of other serious crimes. Many will not even report these crimes because they have no faith in the current system, where decisions about whether to prosecute are made by commanders and not trained lawyers. And yet this vote continues to be delayed and denied, week after week. While I am glad to see that more of our colleagues have acknowledged that we must move sexual assault out of the chain of command, it is not enough. It doesn't address the fundamental flaw in the military justice system, which is that it asks commanders to act as judge and jury in highly complex crimes that they are not trained to do. In fact, the training commanders get includes just a few hours, at the most, on legal topics like military justice and unlawful command influence. No one could be expected to learn in a few hours what it takes lawyers years of study and decades of experience to master. That is why this bill would move serious crimes to the purview of those lawyers who have had the time to properly prepare for the job. Today, I would like to outline exactly which crimes this bill would move out of the chain of command. Opponents have tried to misrepresent these crimes the bill addresses. It does not, for example, deal with larceny under $1,000 or destruction of government property. Those crimes would stay with the commander. The bill includes a finite list of crimes. I will read them all now: recruit maltreatment, nonconsensual distribution of visual images, murder, manslaughter, murder of a pregnant mother, child endangerment, sexual assault, obscene mailing, sexual assault of a child, voyeurism, major financial crimes, major fraud, robbery, bribery, graft, kidnapping, arson, extortion, aggravated sexual assault, maiming, domestic violence, stalking, perjury, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. That is it. That is the list. Those are crimes that have punishment of more than 1 year associated with them. I ask those who oppose this reform to tell me why they would expect a commander with as little as a few hours of training to be prepared to try cases on obscene mailing or to be well versed on the elements of extortion. Tell me about the commander who understands the intricacies of using false documents to claim benefits or has the time to investigate complex financial frauds. Tell me about what leaves our commanders prepared to act as judge and jury in a murder trial or a kidnapping case. Our bill simply recognizes that these are serious crimes that require legal expertise to properly review and prosecute. By moving these crimes to independent military lawyers, this reform allows commanders to focus on what they are trained to do: preparing our troops to fight and win our Nation's wars. Additionally, the chairman has said that this bill would remove from the chain of command ``crimes that have been handled by the military chain of command effectively for years and years and years.'' But, actually, that is not the case. They haven't been handled effectively. Just this week the Military Times reported on the case of Private Jonathan Lauture, who is alleged to have shot and killed Jason Lindsay in June 2019, when Lindsay entered Lauture's home in an attempt to intervene in a situation of domestic violence. His chain of command at Fort Bliss was aware of the killing, but they did not inform the Army's criminal investigation division. Instead, they quickly reassigned him to Fort Stewart, where he continued to assault his wife. The Military Times reports: Army investigators had no idea that the shooting had even occurred, much less the domestic violence. . . . Lauture's Fort Bliss chain of command did not inform the CID of the shooting. Nobody did, until a domestic violence investigation in December 2019 by Fort Stewart CID incidentally learned that Lauture had [allegedly] killed a man who was attempting to rescue his wife. That is how the current system handles alleged murder and domestic violence. It is not only ineffective, it is actively concealing information and hampering justice. That is why the current system is unacceptable. We have to reform the system. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act is supported by experts, by servicemembers, and by a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of Senators if we bring it to the floor. Mr. President, as 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; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I have 8 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. 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, July 15, 2021, at 9:30 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, July 15, 2021, at 10:30 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, July 15, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 10:15 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, July 15, 2021, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on executive business. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at start of the first vote, 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, July 15, 2021, at start of the first vote, to conduct a hearing.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I rise today to call for every Senator to have a chance to consider and cast a vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill would ensure that people in the military who have been subject to sexual assault or other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. I know that my colleague from Oklahoma, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, reached out to our military chiefs for their thoughts on this bill. While there was, as Army GEN James McConville wrote, recognition ``that there are concerns with the way our current process pursues justice for major crimes,'' I understand that they also have concerns about this legislation, and I would like to allay those concerns today. More broadly, the service chiefs' letters all seem to indicate a misunderstanding of how fundamental this change would be. Marine Corps Gen. David Berger, for instance, wrote that the bill ``appears to create a more complex system that could potentially slow the military justice process.'' Space Force Gen. John Raymond wrote that ``the proposed changes add a layer of complexity that needs to be fully understood.'' This bill would streamline, not complicate, the military justice process. The lawyers who would be making these prosecution decisions under our legislation are already working on these very cases. Navy ADM Michael Gilday expressed concern that ``large scale removal of commanders' authority could cause sailors to doubt the capabilities of their commanders or to believe that their commanders operate without the full trust of their superiors.'' That worry is unfounded. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America surveyed their members--recent veterans--and 77 percent said that moving a serious crime like sexual assault out of the chain of command would have no impact on their view of the commander's authority. Nearly 1 in 10 said that the change would lead them to view their commander as more of an authority figure. I would point out that the IRC Chairwoman, Lynn Rosenthal, said: The IRC rejects the motion that, by moving legal decisions about prosecution from the command structure, that commanders would have no role. It's simply not the case. Commanders are responsible for the climates they create. They're responsible for working to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment, and they're responsible for making sure that victims are protected when they come forward to report. So, the idea that they won't have an interest in solving this problem if they are not making those technical legal decisions, we think, is simply false. I trust that our commanders will be able to maintain their authority and maintain their investment in the welfare of the troops without being responsible for deciding these serious crimes. General Berger put it well. He wrote: I expect commanders to always bear responsibility for their Marines; changes like those in this bill will never relieve commanders of their duty to care for and lead their Marines, including when certain military justice processes are removed from their control. There were also questions about whether or not these changes were needed for all serious crimes. Admiral Gilday wrote that he had ``seen no evidence that there is a lack of trust among victims for all crimes for which the punishment exceeds one year of confinement.'' There is evidence. The Department of the Air Force inspector general conducted a survey in 2020 which found that one in three Black servicemembers said they believe the military discipline system is biased against them and that three in five Black servicemembers believe they do not and will not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their White peers if they get in trouble. That level of distrust must be addressed. General Raymond also suggested a more limited reform, writing that beyond sexual assault, ``the other offenses are not as complex and do not require specialized training.'' On the contrary. Crimes included in our bill, like murder, manslaughter, fraud, and extortion, all present complex cases, and they deserve to be put in the purview of trained legal experts. As you know, Mr. President, our bill has a bright line at felonies. To be a felony, it has to be a complex crime. Our bill does not include misdemeanors. The service chiefs' letters also included calls to put an emphasis on preventing, rather than prosecuting, these crimes. I, too, would rather see these crimes not happen, which is why this bill includes various provisions on prevention efforts. But given the current reality, prevention is not enough. We must prosecute these serious crimes and show that there are real consequences for anyone who commits them. Doing so not only changes the culture, it will remove recidivists from the ranks, preventing them from committing more crimes. Right now, there is a deep lack of trust in the current system and whether or not it can or will deliver justice. That is detrimental to our armed services. As General Raymond wrote, ``Lack of trust and reluctance to seek justice are, in themselves, readiness issues.'' I remind my colleagues that our job is to provide oversight and accountability over the executive branch, including the armed services, and to ensure that those who serve our country in uniform are being well served by their government. As Berger noted, if the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not adequately ``promote justice'' or ``assist in maintaining good order and discipline,'' then it must change. The current system does not adequately promote justice, and it must change. It is our duty and our obligation to do the work to change it, and this body and every Senator in it deserves to have a vote. 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

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to once again call for every Senator to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote for the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. The bill would remove all serious crimes except for military-specific crimes out of the chain of command and give it to trained military prosecutors to decide whether or not to move that case to trial. Making that change would end days of asking commanders, who are not trained lawyers, to make complex legal decisions in cases where they often know both the accuser and the accused. That change is necessary. It is necessary because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not to servicemembers of color. I am proud that our legislation has recently won the endorsement of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, who have highlighted how this reform would address the systemic barriers to justice our servicemembers of color face. I want to thank the CBC for their strong support. I share their urgency when it comes to addressing those systemic injustices. Right now, Black servicemembers are up to 2.61 times as likely to face disciplinary action as their fellow White servicemembers, and Black and Hispanic servicemembers are more likely than White servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial across the military services. The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice began collecting data on race and courts-martial last June. Even in the brief period of time they have tracked, the disparities are tragically clear. In the Army, just 21.4 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but Black servicemembers account for 35.5 percent of the accused in general courts-martial. In the Air Force, just 14.7 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but they account for 23.1 percent of the accused. In the Navy, 17.2 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but they account for 34.3 percent of the accused. Those figures speak to an inherent bias in the system that must be addressed. Congressman Anthony Brown, who served in the military for 30 years and worked as an Army judge advocate general and as a clerk for then- Chief Judge Eugene Sullivan at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, recently wrote in the Washington Post about the need to pass this legislation. He wrote: Following the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and too many more Black and Brown Americans, there has been a nationwide call to address the disparities in our criminal justice system. But these efforts cannot overlook the criminal justice system that is not on the front pages or in [the] television news--[that is] the one in [the U.S.] military. The current military justice system is not serving our country's higher values of justice, equity and fairness. It has put servicemembers of color at a disadvantage and left them subject to a commander-controlled system they do not trust. In a survey last year of members of the Air Force and [in the] Space Force, 3 in 5 Black servicemembers said they would not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their White peers if they faced disciplinary action. One-third believed the military justice system is actively biased against them. Those fears are corroborated by the facts. . . . Our military justice system mirrors the discrimination in the civilian criminal justice system, sometimes rising to a life- or-death matter. A 2012 study showed that, before its last use decades ago, nearly two-thirds of servicemembers sentenced to death were servicemembers of color. These long- standing disparities and this unjust system demand our attention and action. These disparities are longstanding. A task force established by President Nixon's Secretary of Defense in 1972 identified many of the same issues and same causal factors we see today. The task force reported: In the course of our conversations with black and Spanish- speaking [servicemembers] throughout the world, we became convinced that the black or Spanish-speaking enlisted man is often singled out for punishment by white authority figures where his white counterpart is not. There is enough evidence of intentional discrimination by individuals to convince the Task Force that such selective punishment is in many cases racially motivated. I know that some of my colleagues have called for more time to study this issue. I would point them to a 2020 review from the Air Force inspector general, which found that for every year between 1999 and 2019, Black airmen were 60 percent more likely to face court-martial and 74 percent more likely to receive nonjudicial punishment from their commanders than their White counterparts. That is 20 years of data telling the same unacceptable story. What more proof do they need? It has been nearly 50 years since the Nixon administration's task force brought this issue to light, and we have seen little positive change. Our servicemembers cannot wait any longer. Congressman Brown is right--this unjust system demands our attention and action. As Members of Congress, we have the constitutional duty to provide oversight and accountability over the Department of Defense. We have the job of writing and revising and improving the military code of justice. It is a congressionally created code. Addressing these disparities is our responsibility and no one else's. This bill will help us do that. Now is the time to act. In addition to the Congressional Black Caucus, this bill is supported by legal experts and servicemembers. It has the support of almost every veteran group I can find, from the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group to the Vietnam veterans group, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This is supported by our servicemembers and our veterans. It also has the support of a growing number of bipartisan Congress Members in the House. It also has the support of 66 U.S. Senators--a filibuster-proof majority. If the vote were called today, it would pass. This bill should be voted on. 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 propose 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.

Ms. GILLIBRAND

Ms. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to once again call for every Senator to have an opportunity to vote on a generational bill to fix how the military deals with sexual assault and other serious crimes. It is the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill will ensure that men and women who serve in our military have the opportunity for basic justice, basic civil liberties, and basic protection under the law. I want to start by recognizing the monumental advance toward military justice reform made during our Senate work week. The Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military released their recommendations, which included removing the prosecution of sexual assault and related crimes from the chain of command. It is a historic sign of progress after decades of obstruction. The Secretary of Defense has agreed with the Commission's findings that the removal of sexual assault prosecutions from the chain of command and the professionalization of the military justice system would benefit survivors and in no way diminish good order and discipline. It is also a historic sign of progress that President Biden has endorsed all of these recommendations. After years--years--of pushing for these types of reforms, this change in thinking from our military and executive leadership is truly momentous. Every crime that the IRC reviewed, they recommended removing it from the chain of command. That is a clear recognition that the current military justice system is not capable of addressing the epidemic of sexual assault among our ranks and that it is not providing justice for our servicemembers. As President Biden said, ``This is the beginning, not the end of our work.'' While I welcome the IRC's recommendations, I am deeply heartened to see that Secretary Austin and President Biden both endorse the recommendations and will happily work with us to make them a reality. We also have to recognize that the IRC was provided a very limited task--to review only sexual assault and harassment in the military. No other crimes were under their purview. Unfortunately, they were also not asked to look at other serious crimes that are related, such as murder. We as a Congress have been tasked with a larger job. It is our job to ensure that the military writ large works for every servicemember. The recent scandals at Fort Hood, the murder of Vanessa Guillen, and the deep racial disparities in prosecutions have made it plain that the need for reform in the military justice system goes far beyond sexual assaults. Vanessa Guillen was murdered, and she was harassed. Serious crimes such as murder deserve the consideration of military lawyers who are trained with expertise, not commanders. For those who worry about the impact that this reform would have on command authority, I would point to the head of the IRC, the chairwoman, Lynn Rosenthal, who said: The IRC rejects the notion that, by removing legal decisions about prosecution from the command structure, that commanders have no role. It's simply not the case. Commanders are responsible for the climates they create. They're responsible for working to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment, and they're responsible for making sure that victims are protected when they come forward to report. So, the idea that they won't have an interest in solving this problem if they are not making [a] technical, legal [decision], we think, is simply false. The same logic extends to all serious crimes. Commanders will still be responsible for setting the culture that prevents them, for protecting victims, and for maintaining an interest in solving these problems even if they are not making these complex, technical decisions about whether or not a case should go to trial. And in a great number of these cases that do not go forward to trial, they come back to the commander for the commander to use his discretion--nonjudicial punishment, summary court-martial, or special court-martial--the many tools he still has. We must guarantee that we have a professional, unbiased system for all servicemembers. It is our constitutional duty to provide oversight and accountability over the Department of Defense. We are the authors of the military justice code. We are the ones who put it in place. It is Congress's duty to update it and to make sure it works. We can do that by taking this momentum and building upon it and passing the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act this year. We have the votes to pass it in committee. We have the votes to pass it on the floor. This is an issue we have been fighting for and talking about and having hearings on for 8 years. I began calling for a full vote on the floor on this bill on May 24. Since then, an estimated 2,744 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious crimes. All of them deserve justice, and it is our responsibility to provide it. 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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. First of all, our bill is entitled ``Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act,'' so, as the chairman has requested, there is a great deal of prevention in this bill. And I dare say, if the chairman was going to include all of the recommendations of the IRC, we would have a very strong base bill on which to work from, but I do not have the sense that that will be done. In fact, I do not have the sense that all the recommendations are being considered, so I intend to offer an amendment that encompasses all of the recommendations. Second, the reason why murder and other serious crimes must be included is because there are two challenges within the military: One, sexual assault cases are not handled properly, and unfortunately too few go to trial and too few end in conviction. The rate of going to trial and the rate of conviction has gone down. The second reason is, if you only allow sexual assault cases to have a proper review, you will further marginalize survivors of sexual assault, who, more often than not, are women who report those cases, because receiving special treatment and a special legal system will not create fairness within the military for them. Third, there is enormous evidence in the last 3 years of considerable racial bias against Black and Brown servicemembers. In the marines, if you are a Black man, you are up to 2.6 times more likely to be punished. That is a serious problem, and this is an issue that has been investigated for a long time. So I believe that the bright line of felonies, as our allies have already done in the UK, Israel, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and Australia, is meaningful because they did it for defendants' rights, they did it to professionalize their military justice system, and they did it to protect all servicemembers. Servicemembers in the U.S. military deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.