The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1520” mentioning Mitch McConnell was published in the Senate section on pages S4757-S4758 on June 24.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up