[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4577-S4578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Police Departments

  Madam President, on another topic, I come to the floor today in 
support of America's police officers. Every weekend, I go home to 
Wyoming. Every weekend, people ask me about three issues: the 
President's attacks on American energy, the crisis at our southern 
border, and the Democrats' defunding the police.
  People see the headlines. They see the images on the news. They have 
heard about looting and rioting, the violence in Democrat-run cities. 
They are deeply concerned.
  Last year, 63 of America's 66 largest cities saw increases in one or 
more categories of violent crimes. On average, homicides are up by one-
third in just 1 year. Since President Biden took office, these 
increases have continued in Democrat-run cities. In the first 3 months 
of this year, homicides went up in Washington, DC; Oakland, CA; 
Philadelphia; Chicago; and Baltimore, just to name a few. It is no 
wonder that the American people tell pollsters that they feel less safe 
today than they did 1 year ago.
  The Democratic crime surge is especially shocking because it is a 
reversal of a long-term trend. For a quarter of a century, crime in 
America had been going down. The violent crime rate was cut in half. 
The murder rate was also cut in half. It was a historic, bipartisan 
accomplishment.
  Then, in 2014, Democrats began their war on law enforcement officers. 
After Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, MO, Democrats started 
attacking police. Crime suddenly went up in Democratic cities. In the 
final 2 years of the Obama-Biden administration, the murder rate went 
up by one-fifth. Violent crime overall went up by nearly 7 percent.
  Then Republicans took back the White House and the Congress. We 
stopped the war on law enforcement, and crime went down again.
  Last year, Democrats began a repeat of 2014. This time, it was on a 
much larger scale. Democrats began attacking police again. Crime went 
up again in Democrat-run cities. America's cities saw the largest 
increase in murder on record.
  My Democratic colleagues might say it is a coincidence. Yet there is 
a very clear chain of events: Democrats attack police. They cut police 
funding. The number of police officers went down. Crime went up.
  We had a chance to fix the problem in law enforcement. Senator Tim 
Scott introduced a police reform bill, which I strongly support. Yet 
the Democrats blocked it. Time and again, Democrats put criminals ahead 
of police and law-abiding citizens. Innocent people continue to pay the 
price.
  Democrats spend trillions and trillions of our tax dollars. Yet they 
cut funding to police, to law enforcement. Last year alone, Democrats 
cut more than $1 billion worth of police funding. This includes cutting 
funding in cities where violent crime went up.
  Police have been retiring or quitting in historic numbers. Fewer 
police officers means more crime, more destruction, and more fear in 
our cities.
  The American people deserve better. The American people deserve 
safety and peace of mind. It is time for the Democrats to stop 
attacking the police. It is time for the Democrats to stop wasting 
taxpayer dollars on liberal spending. It is time for Democrats to start 
paying attention to public safety.
  I say to my Democratic colleagues, the vast majority of police 
officers in this country are heroes. They put their lives on the line 
for us every day. It is time to treat them with respect.
  When Democrats wage their war on the men and women who dedicate their 
lives to law enforcement, only criminals win. The rest of our Nation 
loses.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  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.

[[Page S4578]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, once again, I object to the request from 
the Senator from New York for the reasons I have previously stated, and 
I will repeat again what I have said publicly and what I have committed 
to.
  I support removing prosecution of sexual assault, the types of crimes 
that Senator Gillibrand discussed, from the chain of command. But her 
bill goes further to include crimes not related to sexual assault. The 
removal of sexual assault crimes from the chain of command will be an 
historic change in the military justice system and one which Senator 
Gillibrand can claim great responsibility for effecting. We must take 
care, however, that we do it thoughtfully, in a manner that does not 
break the military justice system.
  The worst thing we can do to victims of sexual assault is to move a 
bill through that can't be implemented effectively or on time, creates 
too large a workload for too few qualified military judge advocates, 
imperils prosecutions, leads to convictions being overturned on appeal, 
or results in neglected cases because the necessary attention cannot be 
devoted to them.
  According to the Department of Defense, the number of full-time 
colonels, lawyer disposition authorities required to execute the system 
as proposed, which would take effect 180 days from enactment, exceeds 
the number of judge advocates in that senior grade. And this doesn't 
account for her bill's requirement that these O-6 judge advocates have 
significant trial and criminal law experience or that they would not 
then be available for other important assignments reserved for O-6s, 
such as military judges and division, corps, or combatant command judge 
advocates.
  The heads of the service Judge Advocate General's Corps have 
previously raised concerns about the implementation timeline, the 
resources necessary to execute, and a host of other inconsistencies 
with the current system that would have to be addressed to be sure of 
successful implementation. These are the very military lawyers that 
Senator Gillibrand's bill would empower to make prosecutorial 
decisions, which includes an evaluation of a far greater number of 
cases than simply those that end up in court-martial. These are the 
issues that we need discuss in the committee and not dispose of in an 
amendment on the floor. The committee will do this and do it 
faithfully. And I am very confident that we will be able to move 
legislation that does remove any crimes related to sexual misconduct 
from the current command to a system that Senator Gillibrand is 
proposing.
  With that, I would reiterate my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  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.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Gillibrand, as 1 of the 65 other cosponsors of 
this legislation, I think you are to be commended for every day coming 
to the floor, to be as consistent in being for this legislation as you 
have been since 2013. And every one of us thank you for your 
persistence. You need to be congratulated. And all the people who have 
been harmed by sexual assaults over the last decades owe you a great 
deal of gratitude for that.
  So I am here to join Senator Gillibrand in asking for a vote on this 
crucial legislation. And, obviously, today we aren't going to get it, 
but eventually it is going to happen. You can't say no to 66 Senators 
that want this legislation. The Military Justice Improvement and 
Increasing Prevention Act has that many bipartisan cosponsors, and it 
is past time for this bill to become law.
  This legislation was first introduced by Senator Gillibrand and me 
and other Senators 8 years ago and has gained more and more support 
each year. Senators who previously were skeptical have come around and 
realized that the Department of Defense can't handle the pervasive 
problems of sexual assault on their own.
  The Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense have had 
more than enough time to consider this idea. They have told us that 
they have it under control and tried other approaches. Those approaches 
have not worked. Women and men in the military continue to face high 
rates of sexual assault and retaliation. It is clear this bill is 
needed.
  By moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command, 
perpetrators of sexual assault and other serious crimes will be held 
accountable. Survivors will have more confidence in the process. 
Retaliation will be less likely. We have been waiting almost a decade. 
There is no need any longer to wait. I urge my colleagues to allow this 
bill to move forward today. And, obviously, it isn't going to move 
forward today, but Senator Gillibrand will be back here tomorrow, 
asking the same thing. And I applaud you for doing that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah