[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 103 (Monday, June 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4512-S4513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Lina M. 
Khan, of New York, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner for the unexpired 
term of seven years from September 26, 2017.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise for the eighth time to call 
for this entire body to have the opportunity to vote on and consider 
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 ask for this vote because I want to ensure that this important 
reform, which is backed by a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of 
the Senators, becomes law. If we leave this debate and this reform to 
the national defense authorization committee review, I have no doubts 
that that will not happen.
  We all know how a bill becomes a law. It passes the Senate and the 
House, and is signed by the President. And we all know how this process 
can be subverted. We have seen popular provisions that have passed both 
the House and the Senate be minimized, watered down, or removed in 
conference altogether. And I have certainly seen good proposals killed 
behind closed doors of the NDAA markup.
  In 2019, I introduced a much smaller reform called Safe to Report. 
That provision was designed to improve reporting rates by allowing 
survivors of sexual assault to report the assault without fear of 
retaliation in the form of misconduct charges for related minor 
offenses, things like underage drinking or breaking a curfew.
  That commonsense reform, which could have allowed more survivors to 
come forward, passed in both the House and the Senate, but it was 
removed in conference. We had to reintroduce the very same bill the 
following year in order for it to be included and become law in the 
next year, the fiscal year 2021 NDAA.
  If a program focused solely on helping to make it easier for 
survivors to report their assault was removed in conference, I have 
little reason to believe that this once-in-a-generation reform will 
survive.
  Given the lack of progress we have made on sexual assault in the 
military and the entrenched problems with the military justice system, 
we cannot allow this widely supported reform to be left to the whims of 
those working behind closed doors in conference--a process with a rich 
history of subverting reforms on behalf of the Department of Defense. 
Let us have this vote in the Senate, and let us send it to the House to 
become law.
  Every day we delay this vote is another day we deny justice to the 
survivors of sexual assault. We deny justice to servicemembers who have 
been affected by serious crimes. We deny justice to the men and women 
who do so much for this country. We owe it to them to not wait another 
minute longer.
  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 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?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving my right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island
  Mr. REED. Madam President, like the Senator from New York, I believe 
that we should transfer crimes regarding sexual misconduct to a special 
prosecutor, as the Senator of New York has outlined, and that is a 
decision that many of my colleagues have made over the last few months. 
In the past, they have been opposed, as I have opposed that approach.
  The difficulty is the transfer of other crimes like burglary, arson, 
financial mismanagement, misappropriation of government funds or 
properties. Those issues have not been carefully studied, and they 
should be studied, and that is the purpose of the committee.
  We will take this up. We will study it very closely. We will also 
look at something that I think has to be looked at seriously: How do we 
implement this reform, and how much time do we need? The last time that 
we made a major change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we 
allowed the Department of Defense 2 years, and they took all of it. The 
present legislation would allow 18 months. This is something we have to 
look at.
  We also have to look at the resources that are needed. This involves 
a change in the structure of the military legal system, and the 
committee is a place where we will get the best views of people who 
have dedicated themselves in the Senate to thinking hard and thoroughly 
about issues of military justice, issues of military preparedness, and 
all of these things.
  Looking forward to a debate, but looking also forward to, I think, 
what

[[Page S4513]]

is becoming increasingly secure--the transfer of responsibility for 
sexual assault and crimes of that nature to an independent 
prosecutorial approach--it is something I think that we can anticipate 
going forward.
  And with that, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, there are several reasons why I 
disagree strongly with the chairman.
  First of all, this is not a complex reform. In fact, only one thing 
changes: After the military police conclude their investigation, 
instead of the case file being handed over to the commander's JAG, the 
case file is handed over to the prosecutor, who might eventually have 
gotten that case anyway. The prosecutor reviews the case file and 
decides whether or not to prosecute.
  If he decides not to prosecute, he will send it back to the 
commander. Only 3 percent of commanders have this job; 97 percent of 
commanders' jobs will not be affected by this change. And then they 
will get to do what they typically do, which is to review the case; 
perhaps, ask for nonjudicial punishment for related crimes; perhaps, do 
a special court-martial. That sits with the commander.
  The second reason why I disagree with the chairman is that if you 
remove only one crime from the commander, you will essentially create 
an entirely different system just for survivors of sexual assault, who 
are more often to be women who report those crimes. Even though males 
suffer more from sexual assault, they just don't report them, and that, 
therefore, will become a special court for women servicemembers. And 
experts have said that it will further marginalize them, it will 
further diminish them, it will further alienate them. It will be a 
special court for women, or a ``pink court.''
  Third, this reform has already taken place in the countries of our 
allies. The UK did it over 10 years ago for defendants' rights. Israel 
did it over 40 years ago. Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Germany--all 
have taken serious crimes out of the chain of command.
  And in each of those instances, they have said it has not reduced 
good order discipline, and it has not had any impact on command and 
control.
  And so the truth is that this is a change whose impact will be to 
give survivors of sexual assault and any survivor of a serious crime 
the confidence that the military justice system is unbiased and highly 
trained.
  The other reason why this change is so necessary to be a bright line 
at all serious crimes is defendants' rights. And I can tell you that we 
now have data developed in 2017 from Protect Our Defenders, a report 
that says that it is up to 2.5 times more likely for Black and Brown 
servicemembers to be punished than White servicemembers. That is a 
shocking statistic--a shocking statistic.
  So I believe that if you create a bright line at serious crimes, you 
will not only improve the system for survivors of sexual assault but 
for all litigants--plaintiffs and defendants--and you will protect the 
civil liberties and civil rights of Black and Brown servicemembers from 
a defendant's rights perspective.
  The committee has had 8 years to debate, discuss, have hearings, and 
pass legislation. We have passed nearly 250 bills on this topic. They 
have lost their sole jurisdiction over this issue. They have failed to 
improve sexual assaults in the military, and it is now time for an up-
or-down vote, which has 66 cosponsors in this body. It is now time for 
an up-or-down vote on our bill. It should no longer be the purview of 
the NDAA and the Armed Services Committee because they have been 
unwilling to have a vote on this for over 5 years and unwilling to take 
a serious look at how to fix these injustices within our military.
  Our military servicemembers deserve a military justice system worthy 
of the sacrifices they make every day.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________