[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4757-S4758]
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 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

[[Page S4758]]

back of the time, the Senate votes on the bill with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, I object to the Senator's 
request for reasons I have previously stated. But in addition, on 
Tuesday night, Secretary of Defense Austin released a statement stating 
that he had received the Independent Review Commission's 
recommendations and that the administration will work with Congress to 
remove the prosecution of sexual assault and related crimes from the 
military chain of command, a recommendation I agree with. I made that 
clear for weeks now.
  And this statement makes it clear that the argument before us is not 
about removing sexual assault or crimes connected to sexual misconduct 
from the chain of command. The argument is about removing felonies like 
barracks larceny, destruction of government property of a significant 
value, and crimes that have been handled by the military chain of 
command effectively for years and years and years.
  In addition, Secretary Austin notably praised the comprehensive 
nature of the IRC's assessment across all four lines of effort, not 
just military justice reforms, but, as importantly, prevention, climate 
and culture, and victim care.
  The necessity to approach this issue in a holistic and comprehensive 
manner is vitally important if we want to actually reduce the incidence 
of sexual assault in the ranks. We would be naive to believe we can 
simply prosecute ourselves out of this problem. That isn't how this 
will work.
  Accountability is important, but it must be part of a larger reform, 
and I hope we can all agree that it is far preferable to prevent a 
sexual assault than simply to prosecute one.
  Finally, I want to highlight Secretary Austin's statement that the 
Department will need new resources and authorities to implement these 
recommendations. It must work with Congress to secure additional 
authorities and relief where needed, as well as additional personnel, 
funding, and sufficient time to implement them.
  And so, as I have said a number of times already, I intend to include 
the administration's recommendations that derive from the President's 
Independent Review Commission in the markup of the defense bill, 
subject to amendment.
  Colleagues who have dedicated themselves for many years to issues of 
national defense and are knowledgeable of the UCMJ will have an 
opportunity to make amendments, to make suggestions, to debate this 
bill in detail, and then the result will be reported to the floor of 
the Senate, and all Senators will have such an opportunity. That is 
what we have done traditionally, particularly when it comes to 
significant changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  And with that, I would reiterate my objection to the Senator from New 
York's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________