i received a personal letter from the judge advocate general of the army, general caprino, and he wrote me and he said the bill would not be cost neutral according to initial estimates. the army would require an additional 50 judge advocate colonels along with the increase of about 200 judge advocates and other ranks and about 150 legal support staff. that's a quote. she went on to say in -- these are with quotes, that this is happening at a time when the services are attempting to reduce their personnel costs to accommodate shrinking budgets and that is just tim impact on the army. on november 18, 2013, the department of defense provided he an assessment of the devastating impacts of the gillibrand bill, the defense office of cost assessment and program evaluation estimate that total cost of over $113 million

per year. that's every year for -- to implement her bill in the army, navy, air force and marines. not only is her bill not executable in a cost neutral basis, it is not possible to grow the total inventory of nearly 600 judge advocate officers and legal assistants required by the bill within the 180 days of enactment. the decision we make today will have significant consequence on the future of our miltle militaries. the bill we're debating this week threatens to tear apart what i believe is the fabric of our armed forces, the chain of command. i can't find people i can confide in and talk to personally who have been in the military who don't agree with this. i was in the uniform code of military justice when i was in the united states army, not at the level that the -- that the -- some of the senators who have been more recently,

senator graham, for example, and at a higher level. i was an enlisted man but i was a reporter and a lot of times the reporters, the enlisted personnel really know more about the situation than some of the bosses. and i was firmly convinced that granted this was years ago, that you can't mess with the chain of command. when you stop and think about what a -- a commander has to do, he has to be -- he is required to -- take care of the physical condition, the medical condition of our troops, he's required their training, he's required to have medical care if they're wounded, and he has to make the decision of sending our troops into combat. now, it's inconceivable to me with all these responsibilities that he be taken out of this chain and it's not just me. others agree with it. i had conversation with colonel anna smythe from the marine corps. she said at a press conference, this is a -- quote -- "what you

don't understand if you're not in the military is the fabric and the essence of the military is built around the chain of command. if we dismantle or weaken the chain of command, we are lost." and barbara tail lore said -- dale lower said about the gillibrand bill, it would be devastating to the united states military, a commander cannot be held responsible if he doesn't have the authority to act. i think he those of house have had military experience and been involved in the military understand the serious problems that would come from a -- the adoption of this bill. and i strongly recommend that we defeat the gillibrand bill. with that i yield too much. -- with that i yield the the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i'd like to yield 10 minutes to senator susan collins. the presiding officer: the senator from maine.

ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm relieved that legislation addressing the crisis of military assault has finally been brought to the senate floor and i want to commend the senator from new york, senator gillibrand, and the senator from missouri, senator mccaskill, for their leadership in bringing this important issue to the forefront. i also want to acknowledge the courage and conviction of jennifer norris and ruth moore, two mainors who were sexually assaulted while serving our country. they have made it their mission to change the broken system that has not put victims first. through their advocacy, they have helped to shine a light on this crisis, and they deserve our gratitude.

in fact, as senator gillibrand and i were coming onto the floor, we were stopped by a reporter who asked us what has made the difference. i said that it had been the leadership of the senator from new york and the senator from missouri, but i also pointed to the survivors of military sexual assault who have come forward and been willing to tell their stories, painful though those stories are. madam president, since 2004, i have been sounding the alarm over the military's ineffective response to the growing crisis of sexual assault in the military, including the need to ensure appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of these crimes, to provide adequate care for the survivors, and to change the culture across the

military so that sexual assault is unthinkable. madam president, it was ten years ago during an armed services committee hearing that i first brought up the alarming increase in the number of sexual assaults in the military. back then, the attitude of the witness, general george casey jr., then vice chief of staff of the army, testifying at that hearing, was completely dismissive even though these are serious crimes that traumatize survivors and erode the trust and discipline fundamental to every military unit. i was appalled at the reaction.

well, the attitude today among the most senior military leaders is markedly different than the one that i encountered a decade ago, the work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality remains unfinished business. fostering a culture of zero tolerance so that the number of assaults is greatly diminished remains a goal, not reality. and ensuring that survivors do not think twice about reporting an assault for fear of retaliation or damage to their careers is still not part of the military culture. in 2011, i joined our former colleague, john kerry, in introducing the defense strong act as an initial step to address this crisis.

the provisions of that bill which were signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act provides survivors of sexual assault the assistance of advocates with genuine confidentiality, guaranteed access to an attorney, and expedited consideration for the victim to be transferred far away from the assailant. now, these were helpful first steps, but more than anything, the victims of sexual assaults, the survivors need to have the confidence that the legal system in which they reported crime will produce a just and fair result. we need to encourage more reporting, and that is what

senator gillibrand's bill will accomplish. now, this is a goal that i believe is shared by all members of the senate despite our differing opinions on the best path forward for achieving these goals. in the 113th congress, a number of proposals have been introduced aimed at reducing the barriers to justice that many survivors of sexual assault face in our military, and i've been pleased to work with both senators gillibrand and mccaskill toward this end, and as a result of our efforts as well as those of many others including chairman levin and ranking member inhofe, important provisions that all of us agree on have been signed into law as part of this year's -- this past year's national defense authorization act. among those provisions is legislation that i coauthored to

extend the strong act to the coast guard. in addition, senator mccaskill and i wrote provisions mandating a dishonorable discharge or dismissal for any service member convicted of sexual assault. we also allowed a commander to relocate an alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault crime rather than the survivor. why should it be the survivor who has to move? senator gillibrand and i authored a provision that eliminates the elements of the character of the accused from the factors a commander could consider, making it more like what would occur in the civilian system. senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill and i authored a provision that eliminates a commander's ability to overturn a conviction by a jury

post-trial for major offenses. madam president, i mention these reforms because i'm encouraged that we've taken these steps to address this vitally important issue. but more remains to be done. i remain cognizant of the fact that there are strong views at the pentagon and within this body about how we should best move forward from here and what that may mean for the military's unique legal system. but one of the criticisms which i totally reject is that we should just wait a few more months for the result of a few more studies or wait even a few more years to see if the recently enacted provisions have made a difference. i strongly disagree. how many more victims are

required to suffer before we act further? how many more lives must be ruined before we take additional steps that we know are required to solve this problem? rather than waiting for the results of yet more studies, we must continue to enact real reforms, to increase the confidence of survivors, to come forward and report the crimes, to ensure that the perpetrators will be dealt with appropriately, and to strengthen prevention efforts right now. senator gillibrand's bill is a reasonable proposal designed to communicate to survivors and potential perpetrators alike that when survivors are

subjected to these unacceptable, horrific crimes, they will have access to a legal system that fully protects their interests. providing our troops with that basic confidence is the least that we can do. madam president, i believe there is no question of congress' commitment to reducing the instances of sexual assault in the military and providing appropriate redress and care for survivors. while we debate various proposals, we are united by the need for serious reforms that will strengthen the military's response to sexual assaults. and but for the leadership of senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill and the courage of

those survivors who were finally willing to come forward and tell their stories and know that we would listen to them, believe them, and act, we would not be here today. i am certain that our work will reduce the unnecessary suffering and injustice felt by those who have survived these horrific crimes. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i yield time to the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you,, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, the senator from new york. the defense department has been promising congress and the american people for a long period of time that they're working on this problem of

sexual assault, and we're still looking for results. and statistics get worse. so enough is enough, i think is what senator gillibrand is saying with her legislation. and so i'm proud to be a partner in this effort. it fits into an overall principle of government that i have that greater transparency brings accountability and i think this legislation is going to be -- make this whole problem much more transparent and with it, accountability and hopefully get the issue solved. i appreciate the fact that a large number of commonsense reforms were included in the national defense authorization. these changes were long overdue. however, we're past the point of tinkering. tinkering with the current system and hoping that that does the trick. we have had promises about tackling the problem of sexual assault within the current system for years and years. but the problem is still not any

better. and statistics show getting worse. we don't have the luxury of time to try some new reforms of the current system and hope they have an impact. we've had those promises before. what's more, the current system appears to be part of the problem. i'd elaborate on that. we know from the recent defense department report, 50% of female victims stated that they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done as a result of their reporting. 74% of the females, 60% of the males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault. 62% of the victims who reported a sexual assault indicated they perceived some sort of professional or some sort of social or admission

retaliation -- administration retaliation. we can protect more victims, but the fact remains that the current structure of the military justice system is having a deterrent effect on the reporting of these assaults. if sexual assault cases aren't reported, they can't be prosecuted. if sexual assault isn't prosecuted, predators will remain i in the military and tht results in the perception that sexual assault is tolerated in this culture. that destroys morale, destroys lives. if an enemy tried to sow that kind of discord among our military, we wouldn't tolerate it, but we're doing it to ourselves. the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better than that and our military readiness obviously demands it. taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are dependent of the chain

of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our forces. i know some senators will be nervous about the fact that the military is lobbying against this legislation. i have the greatest respect for our military leaders. but congress has given the military leadership more than enough time to fix this current system. we can't wait any longer. we should not be intimidated by people coming to the hill because of their stars and ribbons. they deserve our respect but not deference to their opinion. we all -- we also hear that this measure will affect the ability of commanders to retain good order and discipline. our legislation is no way -- in no way takes away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions. commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. but the point here is that sexual assault is a law

enforcement matter, not a military one if anyone wants official assurances that we're on the right track, we can take confidence in the fact that an advisory committee appointed by the secretary of defense supports these reforms. there's an organization appointed by the secretary of defense that goes by the acronym dacowits, defense advisory committee on women in the services, voted overwhelmingly in support of each and every one of these components of the gillibrand bill. dacowits was created in 1951, way back then under secretary marshall. the committee is composed by civilian and military men and women who are appointed by the defense secretary to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies related to recruitment and retention treatment, et cetera, and well-being -- and the well-being of our highly qualified professional women in the armed forces. historically, the recommendations by dacowits have been very instrumental in

affecting changes to the laws and policies pertaining to women in the military. this is an outside advocacy group or ad hoc panel. it's a long-standing advisory committee hand-picked by the secretary of defense and it supports the substance of this legislation. it's easier to support incremental reform but, in fact, it is also prudent to try small reforms before making bigger changes. i understand why some senators are nervous about the total overhaul of military justice system. it isn't something i approach lightly. however, we have waited for years for various initiatives to tackle this problem. when we're talking about something as serious and life altering as sexual assault, we cannot afford to wait. the time has come to act decisively to change the military culture. we need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn't reported because of perceptions that justice won't be done. our men and women serving this country deserve nothing less and

they deserve it now. that shouldn't -- they shouldn't have to wait any longer for justice. for those reluctant to take this step, i would say if the more modest reforms proposed by others provide -- prove insufficient and we have to come back and enact our reforms at a later time, how will you justify your vote today? now is the time for bold action and i would urge my colleagues to join in that effort. i yield. a senator: i yield to the senator from -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i yield to the senator from montana, followed by the senator from kentucky. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: madam president, i would like to thank senators gillibrand and mccaskill for their dedication and commitment to dealing with sexual assault in the military. mr. walsh: and for bringing this serious problem to the forefront of congress.

their work on the 2014 national defense authorization act helped reform the uniform code of military justice. but i believe we must do more. my perspective on prosecuting military sexual assault comes from my 33 years in the montana national guard. my view on this is simple -- the current system is failing the men and women in uniform and failure is unacceptable. while no legislation is perfect, i believe we must fundamentally change how we deal with sexual assault in our military. and while i support the reforms that passed last year, we have moved too slowly. today's debate is about where we go from here. in the armed forces today, a military commander is ultimately responsible for the prosecution of these crimes. in the montana national guard, except on when federalized, we d things differently. if the unimaginable happened,

the prosecution of sexual assault would occur outside the purview of a military commander. senator gillibrand's military justice improvement act removes prosecutions from the purview of military commanders, much like the montana national guard system. one of the arguments i've heard against this bill is that if we skip the prosecution of sexual assault outside of the chain of command, military leaders will somehow lose their authority on other matters. as a retired military commander, i'm confident that this is not the case. i've never found myself in a situation with the units i commanded where discipline and devotion to a mission was jeopardized by compliance with the civilian justice system. i'm not talking hypotheticals here. the chain of command's function is not a mystery to me. i lived it. and it's hard to convey how angry you feel when the system fails your fellow soldiers.

today's debate is a part of a broader effort to improve our military and the lives of those who have -- who have served. from the justice system to the v.a. claims backlog, to ensuring veterans find jobs when they complete their service, we have the opportunity to guarantee justice for the men and women within our military and to correct its failures. now it's time to get it done. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: william wilburforce wrote, "having heard all this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you didn't know." having heard the stories of sexual assault in the military, we can look away but we can never say that we have not heard of this problem, that we are going to ignore this problem. i don't think anybody in this

body wants to but the definition of an insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. we've known that sexual assault in the military's been a problem decade after decade. i think it's time that we tried something new. when i heard of a young military recruit from my state, a young woman, who was raped, attacked, beaten to a pulp, three nerves pinched in her back, her legs and hip hips bruised such that e couldn't walk. she considered suicide. when i heard that her rape kit was lost and that the case was dismissed, i'm disheartened. her assailant is still in the navy. we have to do something different. we cannot ignore this problem. to me, it's as simple as, should you have to report your assault to your boss? that's what we're talking about. what if your boss goes drink with the person who assaulted you, whose friends with them? wouldn't we want to make the

person you complain to completely outside the chain of command? wouldn't we want to have lawyers involved with this whose specialty is this type of thing? i'm not saying it is easy. guilt is sometimes hard to find. justice is hard to find. but we have evidence that people don't trust the system. they say 26,000 episodes of unwanted sexual contact. they say 50% of the victims, though, go unreported. there's a lot of reasons for this, even in the private world people are afraid or ashamed or don't feel like they can talk about this publicly. but we should do everything possible to make sure that it is easy to report this because we don't want this to occur. now, this doesn't mean our men and women that serve, that this is a problem that overwomens the military. it's -- overwhelms the military. it's still a small percentage but 26,000 people having this happen to them, we need to come up with a solution. when i see this, and i see what

senator gillibrand has done here, to me it's an idea whose time has come. it's about justice for victims. but it also is about finding due process. when you get this out of the arbitrary nature of a commander making a decision and you have it in a court with judges, you're going to hear arguments on both sides. i think it protects the innocent as well as finds justice for the accused. so i overwhelmingly support this bill and this crew sthaid senator gillibrand -- crusade that senator gillibrand has led, and i suggest to the senate that we understand that the problem goes on, that tweaking this problem or nibbling around the edges and saying, "oh, we're just going to wait and see if what we're doing is better," that's what we've been doing for 20 years. i think the time's now to make a change and i stand with senator gillibrand and wholeheartedly support her bill. thank you.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i'd like to yield eight minutes to the senator from rhode island, senator reed. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. there is absolutely no doubt that when a sexual assault occurs in a military unit, when a service member is a victim or a perpetrator of sexual assault, then we've all failed. it's not just the military chain of command, it's all of us. and that's why the efforts of senator mccaskill and senator gillibrand has been so critical and so important. they've galvanized this debate, they've forced action when action wasn't being taken. and now the question is: what is the pathway forward that's going to achieve what we all want to do, a reduction of sexual abuse in the military forces? mr. reed: i expressed before concerns with the approach that senator gillibrand's taken because i firmly believe, based

on experience in the active military, that leadership has to be involved in every stage -- recruitment, training, evaluation, promotion and retention. and when we take the commanders out of any of these steps, we diminish their effectiveness in every one of these steps. to remove the commander from these responsibilities will, in my view, weaken his or her effectiveness and the test of that effective is not in the courtroom, it's on the battlefield. and the consequences of such weakness could be significant to the forces of the united states. so we have to, i would think, continue to maintain a system that recognizes the need for constant attention to this issue of sexual abuse, constant leadership command focus on this issue. and we also have to recognize that the proposal being put

forward here today -- and i think this is critical -- is not just about sexual abuse, it covers a wide range of offenses, offenses like larceny of equipment in the barracks, personal equipment in the barracks. it covers a whole host of crimes that are not directly related to sexual abuse. and as a result, this bifurcated system which has been created -- some traditional charges like awol have been reserved to the commander -- but a significant amount of charges have been referred to this new process. this bifurcated system will cause practical problems that will undercut the effectiveness of units to perform their mission and to do what is necessary to protect their soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. service j.a.g.'s, very experienced legal officers who

have served in the uniform of the united states have pointed out several defense. first the proposal fails to reflect the complexity of these cases. some cases will be referred to the special prosecutor, if you will. others will remain with the commander. that creates multiplicity of venues, multiplicity of investigations, perhaps conflicting decisions. all of that i am poses significant not only cost but interferes with the sense that soldiers should have that they know what the system is. second, this proposal takes away one of the most significant aspects of the system of military justice. that is nonjudicial punishment. for example, as i indicated before in my remarks, you could have a barracks they have who steals an ivan and an ipod -- an iphone and an ipod that triggers a charge that has to be referred to the special

prosecutor. that special prosecutor, if he or she declines to prosecute, then it comes back to the company commander. but the company commander cannot now impose nonjudicial punishment for the simple fact that the accused has to accept the punishment. but if there is no way he or she can be court-martialed, that punishment will not be accepted. for offenses that are properly tried or adjudicateed through the process, those offenses will literally not only go unpunished, but the whole climate of command could be significantly weakened. and then third, there is a constitutional issue, which is under this proposal you have the creation of a single office -- and again i will refer to generically a special prosecutor with the authority to appoint prosecutors, defense counsels, judges, members of court-martial, that raises constitutional provisions and problems. but let me conclude by saying we

have had a vigorous debate and it's been an important debate, but we have had the opportunity since that debate to get the results of the role of the commander of the subcommittee to the response systems panel. these are objective -- in fact, many of them have been for years been in the forefront of urging sensible reforms to the military, of being on the vanguard of protecting victims in many different forms, and they have concluded that the commander should remain within the system. should remain as senator mccaskill, senator ayotte, senator fischer proposed with corrections, with improvements which i think are very appropriate. and so i would urge that we support strongly the provisions that senator ayotte and mccaskill and fischer have proposed, they strengthen the system, but i must say that i

think to remove the commander as proposed would, i think in the long run, be detrimental, not only to the effectiveness of the military force but detrimental to our common goal, which is to reduce sexual abuse in the military of the united states. if we don't do that, if we allow it to continue, it is a corrosive force that will undermine our forces more than anything else. committed to that goal, i think we should support senator mccaskill, and i am pleased to do so, and with that i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i yield time to the senator from california. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, madam president. thank you, senator gillibrand, for your extraordinary leadership. and, you know, you will hear today two themes. one is support both bills, which i believe we should do, and one

is an attack on the gillibrand bill, which for the life of me i don't understand. i'm not going to filibuster senator mccaskill's bill because i think it is important, and i'm not going to filibuster senator gillibrand's bill because it is the one opportunity to bring about the change that the survivors of rape and the survivors of sexual assault are pushing for, and i ask unanimous consent to place in the record the names of 45 organizations who are supporting the gillibrand bill, so when people stand up here and start attacking that bill and how awful it is, i want you to remember just a few of the organizations that stand with senator gillibrand. the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. do you want to listen to the bureaucrats or do you want to listen to the people who know what's going on? the vietnam veterans of america.

the servicewomen action network. the evangelical lutheran church in america. the national congress of black women incorporated. the ywca. 45 organizations. we put that into the record. so i have a very strong message for colleagues. don't filibuster justice. don't filibuster the gillibrand bill. don't filibuster the mccaskill bill. my goodness, these women deserve an up-or-down vote on their bills, and the only reason i think some are forcing a filibuster on the gillibrand bill is they know we have a majority. just how strong it is, we will find out. what a sad day when 17 women in the united states senate support both approaches.

17 of the 20 women that we are facing a filibuster on the gillibrand bill. don't filibuster justice. it's pretty simple. you're going to hear a lot of words from politicians like me. fine. but i think it's important to listen to the words of the victims and find a little humility. story. ahman dough javier serving in the marine corps in 1993. he was brutally raped and physically assaulted by a group of fellow marines. ashamed and fearing for his life, he kept his rape a secret for 15 years. do you know what it's like to keep a secret like that, to suffer the pain, the humiliation for 15 years? and when he finally found the courage to share his story with a friend, he decided to write it down. i want you to listen to his

words. quote -- my experience left me torn apart physically, mentally and spiritually. i was dehumanized and treated with ultimate cruelty by my perpetrators. i was embarrassed, i was ashamed, i didn't know what to do. i was young at the time and being part of an elite organization that values brotherhood, integrity and faithfulness made it hard to come forward and reveal what happened. well, here we are two decades later and no one has been held accountable for that heinous crime. and it goes on and on and on, and i appreciate senator paul reading what happened to one of his constituents, but you will hear the voices of the status quo in this body. and let me tell you they are in great company, the voices of the status quo, the ones who are filibustering the gillibrand bill. let me tell you some of the

voices of the status quo and notice, notice this. they are republicans and democrats. dick cheney. oh, he said in 1992 we have got a major effort under way to try and educate everybody. let them know that we have got a zero tolerance policy. secretary bill perry. for all reasons, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. this is going on and on, 20 years, and that spirit is being continued right here today. from those who want to filibuster the gillibrand proposal. secretary cohen -- i intend to enforce a strict policy of zero tolerance. secretary rumsfeld, sexual assault will not be tolerated. secretary gates -- i have zero tolerance. secretary leon panetta, we have no tolerance for this. secretary hagel continues -- these crimes have no place in the greatest military on earth.

words are swell. who could argue with words? but let's look at where we are today in terms of what is actually going on on the ground. so i say to the voices who are standing in the way of an up-or-down vote on kirsten gillibrand, look at these facts. there are 26,000 cases of sexual assault in the military in 2012. 1.2% of them have been prosecuted. this white circle represents the 26,000 cases. this thin sliver of green you can barely see represents the cases prosecuted. and you know what happens to those people, folks, who get out? they continue their activities either in the military or on the streets of our cities and our counties and our states. but yet these voices of the status quo in this senate will tell you oh, my goodness, we can't make this change, even

though 45 organizations including the iraq and afghanistan fighters are telling us to do so. here's the deal. another way to look at it. 26,000 estimated sexual assaults in 2012. we have got a 90% problem. 90% of these cases go unreported. guess what, folks. are you that surprised they are afraid to go to their commander, those of you who are supporting this status quo? just ask them -- don't listen to senator gillibrand or me. we're not in the military. the people who are in the military are telling us, begging us, every organization that stands for this survivors these change it. now, i ask you if there was a rape in your office in the united states senate and somebody upstairs yelled and streamed and you went up there,

asked the senator, what would you do if you decide the case ought to be prosecuted or would you call the police? would you call the experts? i don't think that c.e.o.'s ought to determine whether a case of rape should be prosecuted, do you? i don't think so. but yet that's what you are supporting here with the commander who knows all the players. supposing he goes out to drinks with the perp, knows him well, thinks he is a great fighter. i know that senator mccaskill is trying to fix these problems around the edges. fine. but let's get to the heart of the matter. so here is my summation. we can continue the 20 years of baloney and not make the change that needs to be made under the gillibrand important bill what

we do is we say we're keeping this in the military, but we are allowing the experts to make the decision. that is fair to the accuser and that is fair to the accused. as a matter of fact, we have people supporting us because they believe it's fair to both sides, not just the accuser. so let's not filibuster justice. don't stand up here and say how you care about this and then filibuster the gillibrand bill because you will be judged on that vote. if you have problems with the details of the bill, vote against the bill, but don't filibuster justice. this is a chance we have, an opportunity we have. yes, it will be revisited over and over again because these problems if we don't make these changes are going to continue, but today is an amazing moment in time that we could come together and allow an up-or-down vote on the gillibrand proposal. we wouldn't be filibustering

justice and i think we would bring some needed change, needed change, madam president, that all the leading organizations that i have put in the record indoors i hope will stand with those victims, will stand with those survivors, will stand with those advocacy groups and be a little humble and not say that we know better than they. thank you very much. i thank senator gillibrand. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i yield 10 minutes to the senator from michigan, the chairman of the armed services committee, senator levin. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, first let me thank senator mccaskill for her terrific leadership on this matter with senator ayotte and others on our committee who worked so hard to strengthen our laws against sexual assault, strengthen the ability of our commanders to act as we did in our defense authorization bill and in the second bill that we will be voting on today. because we will be voting today

on two bills regarding sexual assault in our military, and i believe that the strongest, most effective approach that we can take to reduce sexual assault is to hold commanders accountable for establishing and maintaining a command climate that does not tolerate sexual assault. and to do that, we must maintain the important authority to prosecute sexual assaults that our military commanders now have and we must add greater accountability for those commanders. now, the evidence shows that removing this authority from our commanders would weaken, not strengthen, our response to this urgent problem. and that is why i believe that the bill offered by senator gillibrand and others, though offered in the hope that it would strengthen our efforts against sexual assault, that bill will, in fact, have the opposite effect. in the last year we've learned

in scores of cases during the period studied, commanders prosecuted sexual assault cases that civilian attorneys had declined to prosecute. we have learned that our military allies whose policies have been cited in support of removing commanders' authority generally made their changes to protect the rights of the accused, not the victim. and we've learned that there is no evidence that their changes resulted in any increase in reporting of assaults. so when the allies made the change, not to protect victims but to increase the rights of the accused, it did not lead to any increase in the reporting of assaults. now, madam president, just a few days ago on january 29 we received the conclusions of a report from the response systems to adult sexual assault crimes panel.

an independent panel of legal and military experts of diverse backgrounds that was established by congress, by congress, to advise us on how to respond to this issue. and a subcommittee of the panel addressed the raoul of commanders in prosecuting sexual assaults, the very issue we will be voting on today. here's what that subcommittee concluded quote -- "there is no evidentry basis supporting a conclusion that removing senior commanders as convening authority will reduce the incidence of sexual assault or increase sexual assault reporting." the subcommittee reached that conclusion despite the fact that many members began the process sympathetic if not outright supportive of the notion that we should remove the commanders' authority. here's what a few members of that subcommittee said.

former congresswoman elizabeth holtzman, many of us remember her. quote -- "she's a member of the subcommittee, she said i've changed my mind because i was just listening to what we heard. i started out thinking why not change it? and now i'm saying why change it? she said just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you're going to get the results that you're looking for. close quote. congresswoman holtzman is the author of the federal rape shield law. when she was a member of congress. another member of the subcommittee, former federal judge barbara jones, said that if you remove this authority from commanders -- quote -- "there is no empirical evidence reporting is going to increase and if i were persuaded removing the authority would encourage victims to report this would be a different story but i'm not persuaded of that.

listen to mae fernandez, the director for the national center for victims of crime. she's a member of the panel and this is what she said about the proposal to remove commanders' authority to prosecute. quote -- "when you hear it at first blush, you go yeah, i want to go with that. but then when you hear the facts, like you would in a case, it just doesn't hold up." now, the women making those statements had no stars on their shoulders, they're not pentagon insiders, they're members of the independent panel that we in congress tasked with reporting to us on these issues. underlying the crisis of sexual assault in our military is the problem of culture, a culture that has been too permissive of sexual misconduct, too unaware a person who is successful in his professional life may also be a sexual pred tore --

predators and a culture too prone to ostracize those who report sexual assaults. the military has unique tools to address those problems. foremost, among those tools is the authority of the commander to establish a command climate by giving orders and enforcing discipline. at every time in our history when our military has faced such cultural challenges, like the challenge of ending racial discrimination in the 1940's and 1950's, or the challenge of ending "don't ask, don't tell" in our own time, every time it was commanders with the authority to initiate courts-martial that have been essential in achieving change. but we're not going to achieve change if at the same time that we demand of our commanders that they change the military culture to take on the sexual assault

problem that we remove from them their most powerful tool to achieve change. senator gillibrand's bill creates a new, separate disposition authority to deal with the sexual assault and serious crimes. our focus throughout this debate has been, rightly, on how-term prove our approach to sexual assault. but, as a matter of fact, sexual assault would make up just a fraction of the cases this disposition authority would deal with. in a letter to me undersecretary of defense jessica wright recently reported in fiscal year 2012, the department of defense estimates it handled more than 5,600 cases that would be referred to this new disposition authority if it were created. but two-thirds of those cases did not involve sexual assault. so the bill, the gillibrand bill, would shift dozens of our top military lawyers to a new

authority that would spend only a third of its time dealing with the problem that we're trying to solve, the problem of sexual assault. the defense authorization act which we enacted just a few months ago, provides our commanders with additional tools to meet this challenge and important new protections for victims. it provides victims of sexual assault with their own legal counsel, especially trained to assist them. it makes retaliation a crime when that retaliation is against victims who report a sexual assault. it requires that the inspector general invest all complaints -- investigate all complaints of retaliation, it requires any decision by a commander not to are prosecute -- not to prosecute a sexual assault complaint will have an automatic review by higher command authority, in nearly all cases by a general or flag officer and in certain cases by the service secretary, the highest civilian authority

in each service. the second bill we're going to vote on today offered by senators mccaskill, ayotte and others provides additional protections to those that we just added in the defense authorization act. the mccaskill-ayotte bill ensures victims have a voice in deciding whether their cases will be prosecuted in the military or civilian justice system. indeed, it requires that special victims counsel established by the defense authorization act advise victims on the pros and cons of those two approaches. it requires that commanding officers be graded on their success or failure in creating a climate in which there is no tolerance for sexual misconduct and in which victims can come forward without fear. these additional protections in the mccaskill-ayotte bill help us answer the key question, how can we best strengthen our

protections against military sexual assault? and i believe we do so by empowering victims and by holding our commanders accountable. but in conclusion, we threaten to weaken those protections if we undermine the authority of the very commanders who must be at the heart of the solution. and powerful evidence should lead us to the conclusion that we should not remove the authority of commanders to prosecute these cases. i thank the presiding officer and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i yield my time to the senator from new hampshire. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, and thank you senator gillibrand. i rise in strong support of senator gillibrand's military justice improvement act. i want to commend all the senators who have worked so hard on this legislation and all the groups who have been involved. i was very proud to be an

original cosponsor of the legislation and after more than a year of meeting with military sexual assault survivors and bringing attention to this ongoing crisis, i am encouraged by the historic opportunity we have today. as senator levin said, this is an important debate for us to be having, and i certainly applaud senators mccaskill and ayotte and everyone who has been involved in this effort because i think it sends a very important message to our leaders in the military and to those who would perpetrate crimes of sexual violence. but today, we have not only the opportunity to make meaningful commonsense reforms to our military criminal justice system but we also have a chance to send a very powerful message to the tens of thousands of victims, many of whom have been suffering quietly for decades,

that what happened to them is not acceptable, it is criminal, and it will no longer be tolerated. so let's be clear. sexual assault is a crime, it's an accident, it's not a mistake, it is a violent criminal act often perpetrated by serial offenders. and we can't allow sexual assault perpetrators who establish justice in any setting, but particularly when these assaults occur within our nation's military. unfortunately, it's been 23 years since the tailhook scandal, and despite the repeated assurances that the chain of command is committed to addressing this issue, we are no closer to a solution. so how long will we wait? how many tens of thousands of our sons and daughters will be victims, how many will be victims without reliable access to justice? today we have a rare opportunity to end one of the fundamental

structural biases that persists in our criminal military justice system. this is not about undermining battlefield command or good order and discipline. no one wants to do that. this is about access to justice. survivors overwhelmingly tell us that the reason they don't come forward is because they don't trust that chain of command. they don't trust that the chain of command will handle their case objectively, a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged by military leaders during armed services committee hearings. so placing the decision on whether to go to trial in the hands of experienced military prosecutors is a commonsense reform that will go a long way toward promoting transparency and accountability within our system. our military's traditions of honor and respect are too important to continue to be plagued by the status quo. we strengthen our military when

victims of sexual assault have the confidence to come forward and report crimes, and we remove fear and stigma from the process. we strengthen our military when we're able to deliver fair and impartial justice on behalf of victims. well, victims' eyes are on us today. there is strong bipartisan support behind the gillibrand bill. it's on full display today. i certainly urge all of my colleagues to support this measure and let's make meaningful reform to what's happened for too long to victims of sexual assault in the military. thank you, madam president. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i rise together with my colleagues, senator graham and senator ayotte, and would ask the chair to advise when we have used 20 minutes of time. we're going to engage in a colloquy about this important

decision that's in front of the united states senate. you know, it is in fact with great humility i come to this policy debate. i don't think anyone in the united states senate has spent more time in a courtroom putting perpetrators in prison that have committed sexual crimes. i don't think anybody has spent more time with victims of sexual assault. it is an incredible amount of pressure that you feel when you walk into a courtroom knowing that that victim has placed trust in you to bring the evidence forward and i am forever marked by that experience and it is with that experience that i have become convinced that the policy changes that are being advocated will not work for victims. in fact, it is clear that when these changes have been enacted other places, that reporting

has not increased. it is clear that right now we have more cases going to court-martial over the objections of prosecutors than the objections of commanders. right today there is a court-martial ongoing where a prosecutor walked away from the serious charges and the commander said go forward. almost a hundred cases in the last two years where prosecutors have said, you know, it's too tough, this case is too tough. and the commanders have said, no, we've got to get to the bottom of it. and we can't let the commanders walk away. we cannot let the commanders walk away. and there is nothing in the gillibrand proposal that provides additional protection from retaliation. i think the commonsense argument can be made if you walked back into your unit and a lawyer -- i'd ask senator graham, if you walk back into your unit after having been victimized and the

unit knows the commander has said this case is going forward, how would that contrast to walking back into your unit when the unit knows that some lawyer in fort belvoir hundreds of miles away has said whether or not this case would go forward? i'm trying to figure out how removing the commander provides any additional protection from retaliation to that victim. mr. graham: great question. a commander in the military is not just a "somebody." the man or woman in charge of that unit is the person we give ultimate authority to decide life-and-death decisions for that unit. so if you deal the commander o out, this is no -- you've got a rape in the barracks. the worst thing that could happen in a unit is for the commander to say, this is no longer my problem. it is your problem, commander. and every commander i have met wants it to continue to be their problem, because when you have

one member of a unit assaulting the other, it affects everybody in that unit. and the person we choose as a nation to run the finest military in the world, the commander, has the absolute authority to maintain that unit for readiness. and if you don't give that commander the tools and hold them accountable, that unit will fall apart right in front of her eyes because some lawyer somewhere is no substitute for the commander who is there every day. mrs. mccaskill: senator ayotte, i am also struggling with some of the practical problems in this policy, and one of the things i cannot figure out is why the amendment limits the ability to add any additional resources. it strictly prohibits the military from bringing additional resources to bear on this problem, which is counterintuitive to me. if the goal here is to do our very best job to protect victims and the practical problem is we

do not have enough of the level of j.a.g. officers right now to set up these offices on a global basis, which means that they're going to -- things are going to slow down because we don't have enough. and certainly i know you've been a prosecutor, there is nothing harder for a victim than justice delayed. so in addition to it not increase reporting, in addition to it not protecting from retaliation, in addition to removing commanders from their accountability, we also have some real practical implicatio implications. ms. ayotte: i thank the senator from missouri for her leadership on this. you are correct. you have not -- you have prosecuted more of these cases than i think anyone in this body so i appreciate your leadership on this. and we -- if under the system that is put forward under senator gillibrand's proposal -- and let me thank her for her passion about this issue as we well -- we do, with no -- it prohibits funding and personnel. how does that work? when we're going to set up a whole new system? and i worry about the deployability about this system.

when you're in iraq or afghanistan and you're a victim, and so where are these j.a.g. lawyers going to be? will they be in washington making this decision? but we won't be able to put any additional resources toward it? so is this system still deployability? but other problems on implementation. there have been concerns about violating the right to speedy trial. and if that happens, as you kn know, then the defendant can't be prosecuted. we've got eliminating the ability to plea bargain. we've had senator reed talk about that because this proposal eliminates two-thirds of the crimes from the ucmj out of the authority of the commander, well beyond this issue of sexual assault, which we are committed to addressing. and it -- it creates serious due process concerns. so there are serious implementation questions about this. i want to ask -- i want to raise a question that keeps coming up. so we need to hold the commanders more accountable he here. i agree with the senator from

missouri, we cannot allow them off the hook. and if we take them out of this equation, then there will be less accountability. our proposal actually has it be part of how you are going to be judged as a commander, how you handle these cases. and that is not the status quo because we want the chain of command to be more accountable. but we keep hearing we want victims to come forward. and you know that from your experience as a prosecutor. and i would say this, is the evidence -- does the evidence support that more victims will come forward if we actually pass senator gillibrand's proposal? because why are we here? we want more victims to come forward. will more victims see justice if this proposal is passed? because this is ultimately what we are trying to get at. mrs. mccaskill: in fact, i think that's one of the reasons, if you look at this quote. "i went into this thinking senator gillibrand's legislation made sense. but when you hear the facts, it doesn't hold up."

now, that's an important quote but it even is more important when you realize who said it. this is the woman who runs the national center for victims of crime for our entire nation. she heard 150 witnesses representing many of the groups that have been referenced in this debate. she realized that when they looked at the data, our allies have done this, and not in one nation after years of experience with changing the system has reporting increased. the way you increase reporting is to get the victim a safe harbor, which we have done, to report outside the chain of command, and to have their own lawyer. and to make sure that they have power and deference in the process, which we have done with -- along with other reforms. i'm very proud to have with senator gillibrand o on. mr. graham: if you wanted to find leadership, the definition

of leadership in 2014 -- mccaskill, ayotte and the great senator from nebraska. three women taking on an issue head-on. to my democratic colleagues, to those of you who are going to stick with making reforms without destroying the commander's role in the military, you deserve a lot of credit because people have been on your butt in the donor community to vote the other way. to these ladies -- and there have been plenty of people helping -- you don't know how much it's been appreciated in the military. this is not a legal debate here. how many of you have done a court-martial? how many of you have court-martialed anybody in the military? i've done hundreds as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. this is not some casual event to me. what senator gillibrand is doing is way off base. it will not get us to the promised land of having a more

victim-friendly system to report sexual assaults. that is being accomplished because of the people i have just named: senator fischer, ayotte and mccaskill and senator levin. you have brought about reforms in terms of how you report a case in the military, allowing a lawyer to be assigned to every victim. i cannot tell you how proud i am of what you've been able to accomplish. the united states military is going to have the most victim-friendly system in every jurisdiction in the land, including new york and south carolina. but this is about the commander. now, how many of you believe that we have the finest military in the entire world? every member of this body would raise their hand. and the question is, why? because we got the best lawyers in the world? no. because we got the best commanders, men and women who are given the responsibility to defend this nation and have power and responsibility that most of you could never envisi

envision. and if this is about sexual assault, why the hell are we taking barracks theft out of the commander's purview? this is about liberal people wanting to gut the military justice system, social engineering run amok. i want to help victims but i also want a fair try. but the one thing i will not say is that our commanders that exist in 2014, you are fired because you're morally bankrupt. you don't have the ability to render justice in your unit because there is something wrong with you, your sense of justice is askew. so we're going to fire you and take away an authority you have had traditionally to make sure that your unit is ready to go to war because we feel like you're morally bankrupt. what else -- what other conclusion can you come to? next time you see somebody in the military who's a senior member, the 3% that senator gillibrand says, it's only 3% that make these decisions. who are these 3%?

these are our wing commanders, our squadron commanders, our fleet commanders, our brigade commanders, the people that we entrust and hold accountable for fighting and winning the war. ladies and gentlemen, if you care about what military lawyers think, every judge advocate general is begging us not to do this. the people you're going to give the power to don't want it because they understand that the commander is different than the lawyer. so the first female judge advocate general of the army has made an impassion at plea, do not do this. so this is not a legal issue alone. this is about how you maintain the best military in the world. i would conclude that if you want to create confusion in the ranks and if you want to tell every enlisted person who has to -- should be looking up to the commander, the united states senate just fired your boss when it comes to these kind of

matters but you should still respect them, that is a very confusing message. i would like to say this. we've had some bad commanders, but i want to end my thought, my speech with this. to those who command the military, i have confidence in you. you will take this system to a new level. you've got to up your game. but i am not going to fire you. thank you for commanding the finest military in the world. and i will do nothing to say you're morally bankrupt because i don't believe that. mrs. mccaskill: senator graham, i have great respect for your time working in the trenches as a military prosecutor and in the j.a.g. corps. and i will tell you honestly, i am less concerned about the commanders than i am the victi victims. and you and i maybe don't see it exactly the same way in that regard. i do believe that there are commanders that deserve to be

held accountable for their failure to act, for their ability to sweep this crime under the rug throughout histo history. but i think we're handing the broom to the prosecutors at this point based on the data that we have. and one of the things i wanted to go over with -- and mention, senator ayotte, is the system's response panel. i think it's important to understand the dacowits panel was mentioned. i want everybody to understand the difference between the dacowits panel and the system response panel. the dacowits panel has been in place for year. they took this manner up and heard no witnesses from the j.a.g. corps. in fact, i think they heard two or three witnesses and two of them were me and kristin gillibrand. they took no time to go into this very deep and complex subject. the systems response panel was created by congress, and it was for the purpose of giving us their clear eye of advice on the best way to deal with this

problem in the military. now, this is a majority of civilians and a majority of women that made up this panel. and they heard 150 witnesses over months. they heard from all of the people that are advocating for the gillibrand proposal. they heard from the j.a.g.'s, they heard from victim organizations. and they came out overwhelmingly rejecting this proposal. now, one of the most interesting members -- and i'll be honest, when i went to testify in front of this response panel, i was very worried that elizabeth holdsman maybe would not agree with me. she has a long history in congress. she wrote the federal rape shield statute. i assumed that she would begin this process assuming that the simple equation of victims versus commanders -- i take victims. if only it were that system. and what the response panel figured out is that it's not that simple. judge holtzman, the judge who wrote the decision overturning

doma, she said just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you're going to get results you're looking for. elizabeth -- and elizabeth holtzman -- oh, this is what elizabeth holtzman said. "just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are going to get the results you're looking for." that's what she said. judge jordan -- judge jones, "there is no evidence that removing the convening authority is going to improve any of the parts of the system." that is startling, this respon response, from a panel that looked at it over months, 150 witnesses, majority of civilians, majority of women. this is not a bumper-sticker. it is not as simple as it sounds. i would never oppose anything that i thought was going to help victims or put more perpetrators in prison. ever. this will have the opposite impact that many of the advocates are indicating that it will. senator ayotte?

ms. ayotte: let me just say that this panel took on the key questions. that is, why are we doing this? i'm doing this because i believe that victims will get justice and there will be more accountability. i want to hold commanders more accountable for not only how they handle these crimes but also for that zero-tolerance policy within their unit. that's why we want them judged on this basis. but that panel looked at this issue of reporting and found that there is no evidentiary basis at this time to support a conclusion that removing senior commanders as convening authority will reduce the incidence of sexual assault, which we want them to establish that climate within their unit to do so, or increase reporting of sexual assault. and i would also say, if we want justice for victims, whatever those 93 victims where the commander said, bring the case forward, even though the j.a.g. lawyer said "no"? they wouldn't have gotten justice.

so the evidence is the opposite. and what would we say to those victims? there will be more -- the evidence shows that actually commanders are bringing cases more frequently than their j.a.g. lawyers and over their objections. the panel also found that none of the military justice systems of our allies was changed or set up to deal with the problem of sexual assault, so those allies who have taken it out of the chain of command, this panel said that none of them can attribute any changes in the reporting of sexual assault to changing the role of the commander. we were told from the beginning of this argument that our allies changed this, so that more people will come forward. well, they haven't. and, in fact, what we learned is many of our allies changed it to protect defendants. ms ms. mccaskill: and isn't it true that our report something up? ms. ayotte: in the army it is up 50%. that's even before the legislation that we've all

worked on to have special victims counsel for every single victim that we've already passed in this body. mr. graham: would the senator yield for a second? ms. ayotte: yes, i would. graham dprawmr. graham: why is e commander out of the loop not going to solve the problem? i can't think of any change in the military that is major and substantial that can happen without the chain of command being held accountable and buying in. and i would like to say this: to those who believe that our military is set up where a victim's case is never heard because you've got some distant figure called the commander and they just put this stuff under the rug, 06 commanders -- 06-level are flag officers. it is not rampant in the military, folks, where a j.a.g. will go into the commander. this is a case that needs to be

prosecuted, sir, madam, and the commander says, i don't want to fool with this. the opposite is true, where the j.a.g. will say, tough. commander says, move forward. but what have we done here? we have said to the command that if your judge advocate recommends prosecution in the four areas in question -- sex you'll assault -- and the commander refuses to prosecute, that decision is appealed to the secretary of service. so if you're wondering about rogue commanders -- and there are bad commanders. you're indigit the whole chain of command here. you're indict ago class of americans that deserve praise and a chance to get their act together where they faivmentd but the bottom line is if a commander refuses -- i ask unanimous consent for one minute? two minutes? if the commander refuses the j.a.g.'s recommendation, it goes to the secretary of service. if the j.a.g. and commander both

say this is not a case we want to prosecute in the eater of sexuasexassault, it goes to the commander's commander. so there are built-in checks and balances. the key to fixing the problem is the commander. the key is maintaining a well-run military is the commander. the key to fighting a winning war is the comafnltd the key is bringing justice to victims is the court-martial panel, the lawyers, the judge, and the juries and the commander. but the key to the american military success over time has been the commander. 800 trials in iraq and afghanistan since 9 t 9/11. this is a nondeployable military justice system that senator gillibrand is trying to create. please do not change the structure of the military because of this issue. fix this issue, preserve the structure of the military that served us so well, and keep reforming. and to the senators i have named, you have done those in

the military victims a great service. for god's sakes, members of the senate, do not change the structure of the military at a time we need it the most. hold it more accountable, not less. ms. mccaskill: thank you, madam president. mrs. gillibrand: i yield my time to the senator from nevada. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, madam president. i'd first like to thank senators gillibrand, mccaskill, ayotte, and fisher for their hard work on this issue, and my friend from south carolina, who has worked passionately and hard on this issue also. as someone who strongly believes in bipartisanship, i'm glad to see the senate moving forward today on debating and voting on this particular issue. while we may not all agree thousand best solve this particular issue, we can all agree that it's too important not to debate and ultimately vote on ways to address it.

madam president, our military is the greatest fighting force in the world -- that the world has ever known. the freedoms we enjoy as americans are because men and women continue to volunteer to serve and to protect our nation. the vast majority of these men and women serve with honor and integrity. however, there are a few bad actors in our military who commit crimes against their fellow service members. the question the senate faces is whether or not the military justice system is equipped to properly handle sexual assault within the ranks. after careful consideration, weighing all the facts, i feel the military today is not equipped and that is why i support senator gillibrand's approach. like everyone else in this chamber, i am disappointed we ever got to this point. no soldier should have their service degraded due to dishonorable conduct in the

ranks. but there have been ample opportunities for the military to address this issue within its own rairvetion ranks, and too ms passed without this problem being resolved. it is congress's responsibility now to step in to protect the best america hayes to offer. congress needs to address what is currently lacking for victims. victims need to feel confident in reporting crimes of sexual assault. victims must be protected from retaliation, and victims must be confident that justice will be served. senator gillibrand's legislation will accomplish these goals. if the senate passes this bill today, loopholes in the military structure will no longer be an option to protect sexual assailants. these changes are long overdue and will hold the military to the highest standard that they strive towards. i encourage the rest of my colleagues to join me in supporting her efforts and

keeping our commitment to protect the men and women who are honorably serving our nation. thank you, madam president. ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i yield my time to -- senator mccaskill's time to the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i rise too smeek in full support of the mccaskill, ayotte, and fisher proposal that's before us today. it will only strengthen the historic reforms that have already been passed by this body to combat sexual assault in the military. i also raise to express concerns with the gillibrand proposal to remove commanders from this process because i believe that's going to undermine credibility and accountability. i am glade that we're having this debate on the floor because every member of this senate agrees that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

over the past year, the members of the armed services committee have focused on this issue. it cuts across ideologies, across gender, and across regions. it also cuts across party lines. i was happy to work across the aisle with senator shaheen on improving the standards for personnel responsible for sexual assault prevention, and i was pleased to join with senator blumeen than that will to ensure that -- blumenthal to ensure that victims' rights are protected. i would argue that our efforts to fight sexual assault shows congress at its best. it's how we're supposed to work. so although we may disagree, we do share the same goals. senator mccaskill and senator gillibrand have both been real leaders in the senate armed services committee when we helded that landmark hearing with our top commanders to explore the problem of sexual violence in the ranks last june.

the committee received input from all sides, and we, along with our house colleagues, passed a series of very meaningful reforms when we passed the national defense authorization act. those reforms we can all be proud of. we stripped the commanders of the ability to overturn the jury convictions, we made retaliation against victims a crime, we required dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted of sexual assault. well now we're trying to strengthen that, and we're trying to strengthen those great reforms with the mccaskill, ayotte, and fisher legislation. i believe that our proposal will do more to strengthen the rights of victims and it willen hance the tools to prosecute the criminals. specifically, our bill extends the current protections to service academies. that is so important. that's in our bill.

it boosts the evaluation standards for commanders, also important. it allows the victims increased input, extremely important. so rather than revamping the entire military justice system, which i believe carries massive risk, our proposal improves and it updates the current system. unfortunately, the gillibrand proposal, i believe, takes radical steps, and it undermines a commander's responsibility for his or her troops. under that proposal, almost all crimes, from forgery to sexual violence, they're removed from a commander's purview. it doesn't bring that focus to the challenge we're facing. our proposal does. the other proposal detaches the

commander from his or her unit, and it removes all responsibility. i do not want to remove the responsibility from a commander. we trust these people to watch our best and our brightest, our children and our grandchildren, as they go into battle. we need to trust them in this as well. senator mccaskill brings a wealth of experience to bear on this topic from her days as a prosecutor. and i believe we should all be listening to her. she mentioned in november that the other proposal was seductively simple. i agree. i agree that its simplicity cloaks a host of very, very complex policy problems. she's invested a lot of time in this, and she's explained the technical problems, and i echo

her keynes. -- her concerns. but i would like to underline one critical point to my colleagues. you know, many of our problems with the other proposal might appear to be minor procedural details. however, experience tells us that it's exactly these sorts of problems that can grind a justice system to a halt, and they can damage a legal system. that was the case in 2007 when congress, armed with the best of intentions, modified the rape statute. those hasty changes disrupted the judicial process and compelled congress to rewrite the language. and you know what happened? it delayed justice. and so i urge my colleagues, and anyone interested in completely revamping that military justice

system, you need to be certain that all the questions are resolved and you need to be certain that the implementation will be bulletproof because anything less means delayed justice or no justice at all for the victims. i can go on, madam president, and talk about the commission that brought forth their recommendationrecommendations te remain with the commanders. they didn't say, take it away, take it away from the commanders. and the makeup o of that commission -- mostly civilian and mostly female. i hope that my colleagues will remember these things, look at the facts, look at how we truly can address the needs of the victims, truly find them justice. support the mccaskill, ayotte,

fischer proposal, and i would ask that you not support the gillibrand proposal. thank you, madam president. i yield. ms. mccaskill: madam president, i yield knife minutes to my friend from arizona, senator mccain. the presiding officer: the senator arizona. mr. -- mr. mccain: i thank the senator from missouri. i want to thank her, senator ayotte and senator fisher for this difficult and emotional issue which obviously is very unpleasant and very controversial and understandably so. we are talking about the livelihood, the right to function as members of the military of women in the military. and it is a vital issue because there should be no organization that is at the level of the united states military for providing an equal opportunity and equal protection under the

law than the united states military, because when these young men and women join the military, they do something very unique, and that is they're willing to put their lives on the line for the defense of this country. and, therefore, because of this unique aspect of their lives that they're willing to serve for the benefit of the rest of us, it is also the responsibility of those who command them. and that is unique as well. those who command in the military may have to make the toughest decision of all, to send these young people into harm's way. and no other -- no other person in american society outside of the president of the united states has that responsibility. so what we're really talking about here today is will we hold those commanders responsible for anything that happens within their command?

or will we take that responsibility and shift it over to a lawyer? that's what this is really all about. right now we have units operating in afghanistan. according -- frankly, according to the gillibrand proposal, if there was a charge, we might have to try to find some way to fly a lawyer in. i don't think that is either likely or agreeable. but the major point here is that we hold commanders responsible what happens under their command. and if they don't carry out those duties, then we relieve them of that command. and if they are responsible for egregious conduct, we prosecute them. madam president, i have had the great honor of command. i have had the great honor of commanding at that time the largest squadron in the united states navy, some 1,000 people. and there were a large number of women in that organization even then, because it was a

shore-based squadron. now we have women throughout, i'm happy to say, throughout the military, including combat roles. and i can tell you that in those days we had severe racial problems in the united states military. we had race riots on aircraft carriers. and we held commanders responsible, and we punished those who practiced discrimination. and we had people in our chain of command that alerted and were responsible for the indoctrination and the good conduct of people who in any way showed a taint of discrimination. and i'm happy to say that i believe that the greatest equal opportunity organization in america today is the united states military. we can do that with this severe and difficult and emotional issue of sexual assaults in the military. and the exact wrong way to do that is to make the commanding

officer less responsible. because if you take the responsibility from that commanding officer, then you are eroding his ability to lead. and i would argue their ability to fight. we have the finest commanders in our military. we have the finest men and women who are serving in the military. we are the best military in the world, and there's a reason for it. because as we bring people up the ladder of promotion to positions of command they are tested time after time. i trust these commanders, madam president. i trust them. and with the provisions in the mccaskill bill as we have today, we will preserve that command authority, but we will also have significant increases in oversight and accountability. but to take away, take away that responsibility from the men and women who command these people, these outstanding men and women, and give it to a lawyer is not

the way to go. and i hope my colleagues understand it. and i also would ask one other thing before this vote. if any of my colleagues know a member of the military that they respect, call them up. call them up and ask them whether they would think that this proposal of the senator from new york is in any way helpful to the good functioning of the military and the elimination of sexual assaults. we share the same goal. there are vastly different ways to achieve that goal. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i yield my time to the senator from hawaii for five minutes.

ms. hirono: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i rise today in support of the military justice improvement act. i want to commend senator gillibrand for her outstanding work on this effort and all the survivors of sexual assault in the military who have courageously worked with us on this bill. i also appreciate the bipartisan effort to stop military sexual assaults from happening. while we all don't agree on how to get there, i know that all of us want to stop this terrible scourge in our military. every few years when interest in this topic picks up, it stays relevant for awhile. the military leadership promises to stamp out sexual assault in the military and says that zero tolerance is the policy and place. unfortunately, debt despite alle good-faith actions taken by the department as well as congress, we are still at 26,000 incidents of rape, sexual assault and

unwanted sexuality -- sexual conduct in the military. this bill has nothing to do with telling commanders they are fired or they are morally bankrupt. they should be held accountable for creating a command climate where assaults do not occur or certainly do not occur by the tens of thousands. this bill is focused on the victims, the survivors of these crimes. and when we listen to them, they are in support of the gillibrand bill. we all agree that commanders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline in their units. this includes creating an atmosphere of dignity and respect for everyone under their command. again, commanders must create an environment where sexual crimes do not occur. our proposed changes to the military justice system do not absolve the commander of these responsibilities. it is still their job to prevent these crimes.

it is still their job to maintain good order and discipline. i have heard opponents of this legislation say that good order and discipline would be lost if the commander no longer has the court-martial disposition authority. i disagree. this is similar to saying a could corporal, sore ghent or -- sergeant or junior officer would not act with respect to the commander because the commander no longer could decide whether to proceed to trial for rape or other felony level offense. that doesn't make sense. the commander is still responsible for doling out punishment for insubordination or other negative behavior. the commander is still responsible for maintaining the kind of good order and discipline a command climate where these crimes do not occur in the first place. historically, when changes to the status quo were proposed -- and these include the

integration of military units, opening military specialties to women, and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly -- a familiar refrain from senior military leadership to block such changes was to claim that the proposed changes would destroy good order and discipline. by all accounts, i would say that these successful changes to military policies did not destroy good order and discipline. when these crimes do occur, survivors deserve the ability to seek justice. they deserve a chain of command that will take these claims that, their claims seriously and take appropriate action. we have data that shows that many victims do not come forward because they do not trust that the chain of command within the current system will act impartially. they feel that they might suffer retaliatory actions and ultimately do not report the crime. this allows the perpetrator to go free and commit additional crimes.

the gillibrand bill will increase trust and confidence in the system and help the survivors seek justice. it is time to make fundamental changes to how sexual assault cases are handled in the military. senator gillibrand's bill would be a big step in the right direction. her amendment would take the decision to go forward with the trial out of the chain of command and place it in the hands of an experienced military lawyer. this change would improve the judicial process by increasing transparency, by increasing trust. it would also eliminate potential bias and conflicts of interest because, unlike a commanding officer, the military lawyer would be unconnected to either the survivor or the accused. i want to commend our colleagues, once again, senator gillibrand and senator mccaskill, for their tireless efforts to help survivors of sexual assault in the military. i would also like to commend

senator levin, armed services committee colleagues, and many other senators for working so hard on this difficult, painful issue. we have instituted many positive changes in this area, but i urge my colleagues to take the next step and support the gillibrand military justice improvement act. i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that major matthew altman who is a military officer in my office be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i join my colleagues today in discussion about an issue that i think we all would agree is an issue that really tears at the heart, causes great anguish as we think that those who have

volunteered to serve our great nation, that have agreed to put themselves on the front lines, that they would be in a situation where they would be made a victim, a victim of a military sexual assault, and be put in a situation where they don't know where to turn, they don't know if it is safe to speak up, they don't know how to respond. our military men and women, i think we are proud to say, are the most professional, the most highly trained and skilled and qualified. we will match them against any. and yet when we face these very, very troubling and difficult issues of military sexual assault, it is an under side of the military culture that we have not been able to sufficiently address and eradicate. madam president, the most recent

report on the defense department's sexual assault prevention and response office, which covers 2012, speaks to the statistics, and these statistics have been reported so frequently on the floor of the united states senate. we know them. we share them. and really we agonize over them. but 26,000 -- an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contacts and sexual assaults occurred in 2013, a 27% increase from fy 2011. 25% of women and 27% of men received unwanted sexual contact which means the offender was someone within their military chain of command. and then, madam president, the statistics that go to the heart of what we're talking about here today, across the services, 74% of females and 60% of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting the assault. 50% of male victims stated they

did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done. they have been victimized once and now they don't believe that anything will happen if they speak. they don't believe that anything will be done with their report. 62% of victims who reported a assault indicated they received some sort of professional retaliation, retaliation from the system that they have been trained to trust, to be there for one another. and yet now fear of retaliation. this report was such an eye-opener for many of us, it certainly has galvanized the issue to address where we are today, to truly put on the front burner of this body the issue of what has happened with a military sexual assault and what we can do to address it.

it has remained on the front burner thanks to the persistent efforts of the senator from new york to keep it there. she has relentlessly pursued the vote that we will take today. regardless of its outcome, i think that she should take pride. i think that we should all take pride in what we have collectively accomplished. and i want to note the very fine work of my colleague from missouri, senator mccaskill and her efforts along with senator ayotte, senator fischer, yourself, madam chair, really to bring this issue to a level where we have seen changes that have been made already but the question that remains, is there more that can be done? this congress has significantly improved the system through amendments to the military justice system that were included in the national defense authorization act. the services have also done their part in looking for ways to improve their sexual assault and prevention programs. like making sure that a naval

academy midshipman need not be driven across the state of maryland searching for a hospital that has a sexual assault nurse examiner on duty. in my state of alaska, the headlines over the past year as it related to military sexual assault within the ranks of our national guard units stunned us all. i just recently received a further briefing from our add jew tantd general and folks within the alaska national guard in terms of what they, too, are doing to address within their own system the changes that are absolutely necessary. but the question, madam president, is whether or not these changes will move the needle on these statistics that we just recited. in my view, it remains to be seen. will they give the victims more confidence in the system, will they deter offenders by

increasing the certainty there's going to be accountability if these acts are taken? so today the senate considers the military justice improvement act, a measure that i think, that i think provides victims with the certainty that they need to have confidence in the system. if you don't believe the system is going to be there for you, if you don't believe it's going to work for you, you're not going to report it. you're not going to expose yourself again. as i've said on the senate floor before, this is strong medicine. it is very strong medicine. to any offender who believes that the good ole boy system will permit him to escape the consequences of his actions. in my judgment, enact of this act will lead to greater consistency. it will ensure those decisions are based on the facts and the law and not any external factor.

and that, too, offers an increment of protection to victims as well as to the offenders. the current system of military judgment relies upon the individual decisions of commanders for a decision on whether or not an offense is to be punished and which charges are to be brought. we recognize we have a complex military, and there are many, many commanders and while our code of military justice may be uniform, recent history suggests that its implementation is, unfortunately, anything but uniform. as some have called the gillibrand proposal a radical solution, and one that will make it impossible to maintain good order and discipline in the military. madam president, i don't -- i don't buy that. you know, these were some of the statements that were made several years back when we were

considering task "don't ask, don't tell" just about three years ago. the military is proving it is resilient enough to implement culture change -- and that's what this will take is culture change. i believe that they are resilient enough to implement a change of this magnitude and it will be resilient enough to implement the military justice improvement act. it is not a radical, a novel solution to a difficult problem. in fact, many of our allied modern militaries have moved the decision on whether to prosecute sexual assault outside of the chain of command. they have done it. i believe it is high time we do as well. again, madam president, i commend those who have led so nobly on this effort to make sure that when those fine men and women stand to serve our

country, there is ensured a level of justice, a level of uniformity of justice, and that we no longer see the devastating statistics that we have unfortunately been faced with for far, far too long. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: may i be notified when seven minutes are remaining. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. the senator has four and a half minutes remaining. mrs. gillibrand: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the

senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask to be notified when we have two minutes remaining. the presiding officer: the senate is this a quorum call. mrs. gillibrand i ask it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: all the arguments we've heard today are technical arguments, arguments about why we can't possibly do this. but the victims and the survivors of sexual assault have been walking this congress for more than a year asking that we do something to protect them, to give them a hope for justice. and it's not whether anyone in this chamber trusts the chain of command. the people who do not trust the chain of command are the victims. even general amos has admitted that. he said the reason why a female marine does not come forward is because she does not trust the chain of command. that breach of trust, that fundamental breach of trust has been broken for victims of sexual assault. listen to the victims.

retired marine lance corporal jeremy lance arbergast. he went through tile, his perpetrator got no jail time. he saw no justice for him and he said i joined the marines in order to serve my country as an honorable man. instead i was thrown away like a piece of garbage. he attempted suicide, severed his spine and survived and now advocates for this measure from a wheelchair. that is the story, madam president, that we are hearing from victims over and over again. sarah plummer, united states marine corps said having someone within your direct chain of command handling this case, it doesn't make sense. it's like being raped by your brother and your father deciding the case. that is the view and the perception of the survivors. the presiding officer: please continue. the senator has two minutes

remaining. mrs. gillibrand: i defer my two minutes after the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i yield three minutes to the senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i thank the senator from missouri and the senator from new york for her passion in this important gate. let's not forget the work we've already done on this in the defense authorization including having attorney, taking commanders out of overturning victims, making retaliation a crime. we've bun important things but why are we here today? so here's the issue -- will more victims -- will more cases be prosecuted if we take it out of the chain of command? actually no. there would be 93 cases under the current situation that wouldn't have been brought where commanders actually made a different decision. what about about those victims and those victims having their

day in court? i want more victims to have their day in court. what about the issue as we think about it, why are we doing this, our -- some of our allies did it, we looked at that issue and what our allies, they haven't seen any greater reporting. there is no evidence we're going to help reporting with this. many did it to protect defendants. we're here to protect victims today. we certainly want a system with due process but this is about having more victims come forward and i also want to make sure people understand under the system now you don't have to report to your commander. you can go to a sexual assault response coordinator, your clergy, your minister, civilian medical personnel. so already you can come forward if you don't feel comfortable coming forward to the commander. so no evidence has been presented that we are going to help victims more or that more cases will be prosecuted or more will come forward if we take it out of the chain of command. that is why i want to hold

commanders more accountable, not less. that is what senator mccaskill and i and fischer's proposal does. we want to make sure they are not let off the hook for this. we want to make sure that victims can get not only justice but make sure they get swift justice and this proposal risks delaying that justice in this system. madam president, i would ask my colleagues to vote against senator gillibrand's proposal. i would ask my colleagues to say what will hold commanders more accountable, that is our proposal. i would ask them to say where's the evidence that more cases will be pursued or more victims will come forward? there is no evidence. and our proposal is based on the evidence. so, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, i want to take just a couple of minutes at the close of this very difficult debate to express my deep

respect for the senator from new york, senator gillibrand. i think while many aspects of this debate have been hard, perhaps the hardest part of this debate has been that this disagreement on policy has overshadowed the amazing work that so many have done this year to enact a different day in the united states military when it comes to sexual assault and victims of sexual assault. when the sun sets today, this body will have passed 35 major reforms in less than a year, making the military the most friendly victim organization in the world, giving victims more power, more leverage, holding commanders accountable, holding perpetrators accountable, eliminating the ridiculous notion that how well you fly a

plane should have anything to do with whether or not you committed a crime. professionalizing the process so that victims no longer endure a ridiculous amount of inappropriate questioning at what should be something like a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause as opposed to some kind of rendering of questioning torture to a victim who has come out of the shadows and is willing to go forward. i know i can speak with confidence for senator gillibrand that she and i have walked lock-step on those 35 reforms. we have disagreed on one. and i know in the future she and i will work very hard together to make sure that our military does the right thing by victims and that puts perpetrators where they belong, this prison and out of the ranks of the military where they stain the good name

of the bravest men and women in the world. i want to thank all my colleagues for their patience during this debate. i know this has been tough for everyone. but i stand here with years of experience holding the hands and crying with victims with many victims who have spoken to me in other organizations knowing that what we have done is the right thing for victims and the right thing to hold perpetrators accountable. so i respectfully request that people support our amendment today and reject the one area of policy that the great senator from new york and i disagree on and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i want to focus this where this needs to be. this is not an opportunity to congratulate ourselves on the great reforms we've done. all of the reforms we've passed to date are meaningful and

useful, but this problem isn't even close to being solved. under the best-case scenario, two out of ten cases are being reported today. so let's refocus on what's actually happening in our military today. let's focus on what airman jessica himes who said two days before the court hearing his commander called me at the jag office and said he didn't believe my perpetrator acted like a gentleman but there wasn't a reason to prosecute. she was speechless. she had been promised a court hearing and it was -- she was told two days before the commander had stopped it. trina mcdonald, u.s. navy veteran who said at one point my attackers threw me into the bearing subcommittee sea -- the bearing sea and left me for dead in the hopes i would be silenced forever. they made it very clear they would kill me if i reported what had been done. she did not report these attacks, -- quote -- "the people that were involved in my assaults were police personnel,

security personnel, higher ranking officers, the people i would have to go to to report." last but not least, lieutenant ariana clay, u.s. marine corps, whose home was broken into by two colleagues, raped brutally, ultimately reported, attempted suicide. her perpetrator convicted and convicted of what? not breaking and entering, not rape. calling her a slut. quote -- "the thing that makes me most angry is not even the rape itself. it's the commanders that were complicit in covering up everything that happened." the presiding officer: all time for debate has expired. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 17