[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 123 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4894-S4895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 154, Donald Michael Remy, of 
     Louisiana, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
         Charles E. Schumer, Ron Wyden, Mazie K. Hirono, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Ben Ray Lujan, Jon Ossoff, Tim Kaine, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Margaret Wood Hassan, Tammy 
           Duckworth, Patrick J. Leahy, Tammy Baldwin, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Amy Klobuchar, Mark R. Warner, Patty Murray, 
           Elizabeth Warren.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Donald Michael Remy, of Louisiana, to be Deputy Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Blackburn
     Ernst
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Lankford
     Scott (FL)
     Shelby
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). On this vote, the yeas are 90, the 
nays are 8.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 proceed to the immediate consideration of 
H.R. 1652, which was received from the House and is at the desk, and 
that the only amendment in order be the following: Toomey No. 2121; 
further, that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided between the 
leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the Senate vote in relation to the Toomey amendment; that upon the 
disposition of the Toomey amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, 
be considered read a third time; that the Senate vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, if amended, with a 60 affirmative vote threshold 
required for passage; and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; 
finally, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to 
each vote in the series.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  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

[[Page S4895]]

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
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

                          ____________________