[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 101 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4032-S4033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise for the seventh time to call
for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their
votes for 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 or other serious crimes get the
justice they deserve.
In the 8 years that I spent advocating for this reform, with many
other Senators, I have heard some criticism from those who would rather
not see change to our military justice system. I wanted to take this
time to briefly respond to a few of those criticisms.
First, I have heard that the bill will add bureaucracy to the
process. The fact is, this bill actually cuts redtape. Instead of
needing to find time on a commander's busy schedule for a military
prosecutor to brief them on the case, the prosecutor's recommendations,
instead, become the prosecutor's decision.
Under this law, prosecutors who understand complex military justice
concepts like unlawful command influence and evidentiary standards make
the decision, rather than a commander whose time is better spent
focusing on warfighting than on learning the evidentiary rules. I have
to wonder if these critics have actually read the bill, since it
specifically requires the services to use existing resources that we
have already provided to accomplish this reform.
Second, detractors worry that this law will result in fewer
prosecutions. The opposite is true. Under the current system, only
about one-third of survivors are willing to even come forward to report
a crime. When 64 percent of victims are retaliated against for coming
forward and less than 1 percent of victims actually sees a conviction,
who can blame them?
When we put complex cases in the hands of impartial, professional
prosecutors, both victims and the accused will have more faith and more
confidence in the system. The more confidence survivors have in the
system, the more they are likely to come forward. And the more
survivors who come forward, the more offenders we can prosecute.
Third, those who would rather push off this reform to maintain the
status quo sometimes say that there is a lack of data to support the
policy and worry that it would somehow collapse good order and
discipline. There is no lack of data on justice systems to pull from.
Our major Western allies have implemented systems like this, and in
country after country, this type of reform, just like other military
justice reforms, has improved good order and discipline.
In Israel, for example, this system brought survivors out of the
shadows and gave them confidence to report. From 2012 to 2017, the
Israeli military saw a 91-percent increase in willingness to report
crimes. During that same period, the U.S. military saw an increase of
only 33 percent. Despite the success of the #MeToo movement, we are
still lagging so far behind in fostering a military climate where
victims feel safe to come forward.
Year after year, detractors have had the same dogmatic response:
Commanders will be unable to maintain good order and discipline if we
make this change. Well, I have talked to commanders who have seen the
need for change, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. They can
start with my cosponsor, Senator Joni Ernst. If commanders feel this
authority is essential to their ability to lead, then they have a lot
more to learn about leadership.
Last, we have the argument that is developing that, if we do make
this change, to just make it a little bit. Let's just do it for one
crime. Let's just do it for the crime of sexual assault.
Well, we have an editorial today that was published in The Hill. The
headline is, ``Military justice reform, `pink court' and unit
cohesion.'' These were four military experts who wrote this editorial,
and I will read a quote from it.
President Biden, Secretary Austin and members of the House
and Senate may be tempted to settle on a compromise under
which only sex offenses would be subject to prosecution
decision making by lawyers rather than non-lawyer commanders.
After all, they may believe, it's those offenses that have
given rise to this entire controversy, so let's just fix
that.
That may be the way the process unfolds from here, but it
would be a mistake--and a tragic one, given the difficulty of
getting Congress to focus on military justice in a sustained
way. It would take years for the military justice system to
recover if Congress takes the wrong path at the current fork
in the legislative road.
It goes on to talk about two reasons this would be harmed. The first
lies with the fact that there is bias in the system and that this bias
cannot be eradicated by just taking out one crime, that it should be
for all serious crimes.
I will read from the text again.
Second, even though men as well as women in uniform are
victims of sexual assault, public concern has chiefly focused
on the women. It is concern over them and their willingness
to come forward without fear of retaliation that has given
the reform issue such potency. As a practical matter, if a
parallel system is created for the disposition of sex
offenses, that system will be understood as having been
created chiefly for the benefit of women in uniform. Congress
will, in effect, have created ``pink courts''--courts for
women.
Creating ``pink courts'' will destroy unit cohesion. It is
difficult to imagine a surer way of turning back the clock on
all the progress our country has made in integrating women in
uniform, including opening occupational specialties,
admission to the service academies, qualification as pilots
of warplanes and commanders of naval ships and Coast Guard
cutters, and promotion to flag and general officer ranks.
Congress should transfer the charging power for all felony-
level offenses by military personnel to uniformed prosecutors
independent of the chain of command. Limiting the transfer to
sex offenses makes no sense.
One argument that was not included in here is that, if you do limit
it to just one crime, you don't address the issue of defendants'
rights. Now, with so much data we have available about racial biases in
prosecution and conviction and punishment, it is right that we care
about both plaintiffs' rights and defendants' rights and reform the
entire system.
These unfounded arguments are nothing more than delay tactics. Every
day we delay this vote, we deny justice to our servicemembers--the
people who do so much for us and so much for this country. There is no
reason to wait any longer.
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 the 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S4033]]
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I object.
We look forward to having a very healthy and serious debate on this
issue in the Armed Services Committee so that we can resolve many
claims by both sides about the best way to deal with this.
I think, through Senator Gillibrand's great efforts, we have moved a
long, long way in terms of addressing the issue of sexual assault
through the UCMJ, but there are still significant issues that have to
be thoughtfully discussed. In the context of that discussion, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered