Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. There is nobody who has been more focused on it, and I applaud her for her relentless efforts--relentless. And I have a lot of respect for her.

She has been coming to the floor every night here for the last 3 or 4 weeks and trying to move her bill. I am going to talk about her bill a little bit more and why I and others, in a bipartisan way--the chairman of the Armed Services, the ranking member of the Armed Services, and others--have been coming to the floor to object.

But I also want to say that I care deeply--deeply--about this issue for two very important reasons. No. 1, the issue of sexual assault, domestic violence, is an enormous problem in America but is a huge problem in my State, the great State of Alaska. And since my time as attorney general and now my time as a U.S. Senator, I have been very focused on these issues. And I think, again, Senator Gillibrand has done an outstanding job, not just on the military ones but on a whole broad-based number of these kinds of bills that focus on the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. And I have been proud to work with her on a number of them--my bills, her bills--some of which have become law

So as Alaska's Senator, I have been 100-percent focused on this issue for American society, certainly for Alaska, which is a big, big problem that continues to impact millions of Americans and tens of thousands of my constituents. So we need to do something about it. I agree, not just for the military but for the country. And I am committed to continuing the work; for example, my ``Choose Respect'' series of bills that we have here in the U.S. Senate that I am working on with Senator Gillibrand.

The other reason I care about this issue--and there is no monopoly, by the way, on people who care about the troops--is that I have a 28- year career in the U.S. Marine Corps and still serving. I have been a commander, and I care deeply about every single member in the military, the challenges of sexual assault that we have, which are very real, which, again, Senator Gillibrand has done such a good job to highlight and to have good order and discipline in our military, which is part of the UCMJ, which is one of the reasons why this issue has taken so long and has been a challenge.

Now, the issue that Senator Gillibrand is talking about right now, we will be debating in the full committee in the Armed Services starting tomorrow. Actually, we are starting today, as she mentioned, in the Personnel Subcommittee today. This, again, a lot of the credit--most of the credit--I give to Senator Gillibrand on this issue.

We will have a fulsome debate, probably all day, on this issue tomorrow. And if her bill, which is often understood as removing these issues of sexual assault and violent crimes relating to sexual crimes, was the bill that will be passed tomorrow, I will be supportive, removing that out of the chain of command. That is what many, many Senators--and I have had discussions with them--believe that the primary focus of her legislation is and has been. She has convinced now the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States and the members of the Joint Chiefs. And if that is what the bill was, she would have very, very broad-based support. And I applaud her for that. That victory would be hers more than anyone's. In terms of legislation, of course, I think it will help our troops. Will it ultimately solve this problem, which is a problem in our country and in our military, a huge problem? I think it will help.

My view, as someone who understands the military well, is that it is not going to be solved until we have leaders who take this issue very seriously. That is what we need more than anything, and I think our leadership in the military is starting to do this, but more needs to happen.

So that would be what most of us think has been the focus of her legislation for 10 years and what would be the result likely to come out of committee as early as tomorrow, carving out these issues, not creating pink courts but creating a professional class of prosecutors and defense attorneys who know these issues, which are often challenging. Senator Gillibrand knows this. ``He said, she said'' kinds of accusations often are at the heart of these horrible crimes. And to have that for men and women--so there is no pink court there, by the way--to have that class of cases removed from the chain of command for all of the reasons she and others have been arguing, if that is the result tomorrow, I think it is going to get strong bipartisan support and support from the administration.

Unfortunately, that is not where the bill is. As she is now indicating, this bill would remove all crimes, all felonies--1 year in jail, anything; a bar fight, anything. In terms of the commander's ability to have good order and discipline, all of that under this legislation would be covered--1-year felony. And in many people's view--in my view, certainly--and in the chairman of the committee's view, and the ranking member's view, and many others, this is a hugely broad reworking of the UCMJ, probably one of the most dramatic reworkings of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ever.

Now, why are Senator Gillibrand and others making the argument? What she has been doing--she didn't come down here today, but I have been reading her speeches. She has been essentially saying we need this broad carve-out for every crime, every felony in the chain of command because of racial problems in the military.

This is a new argument. She and I have talked about it. This is a dramatic argument. This is essentially saying what she said in a recent speech: It is ``necessary''--1 year more--``because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not to servicemembers of color.'' This is a big claim.

What Senator Gillibrand has been doing with her previous legislation--8 to 10 years of data to back it up on the sexual assault issues. Again, I applaud her on that. She has been dogged. She has gotten data. She has searched for data herself. But this new argument basing this whole broad-based revamping of the whole UCMJ based on the fact that she is now claiming the military justice system of the United States cannot serve minority members has not been backed up by data-- has not been backed up by data.

She cites three studies, recent studies. Again, this is a new argument. A lot of my colleagues say: Whoa. I didn't sign up for that bill thinking it was based on some kind of broad-based systemic racism in the military. But that is the new argument. We need to get that right before we claim that every member of the military, every commander, is somehow a racist. Even the studies that she has now focused on are saying that disparity is not proof of racial discrimination.

The U.S. Air Force--one of the studies that she has talked about says:

While the presence of disparity alone is not evidence of racism, discrimination, or disparate treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in-depth analysis.

I fully agree with that.

Last year, when we were debating the NDAA, there was an issue that came to my attention about how we had very senior military members, four-star generals, who were not making the rank. We have a Service Chief right now, General Brown, who is the first African-American Service Secretary, Indian Services. When I talked to him, that was disturbing to me. I put forward legislation saying: Why is that? What is going on with our military? Let's figure that out.

What I am saying to Senator Gillibrand is and what the Air Force is saying is, if this is a problem, let's figure that out.

The GAO study that she cites says this:

These findings show an association for disparities at particular stages of the military justice process, but are inconclusive regarding other stages. However, GAO's findings of racial disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, as that is a legal determination that would involve other corroborating information and supporting statistics.

Again, is there a challenging disparity right now that Senator Gillibrand has been highlighting? I believe so. Is it proof that the UCMJ is somehow systemically racist and needs this broad-based change? That is what she has been arguing on the Senate floor.

Unlike her other argument on sexual assault and the crimes that we have seen over the years where there is 8 to 10 years of data that we have all been looking at--again, a lot to her credit--this is something that needs much, much more data before we make broad-based claims. For example, some of those who are supporting her bill sent out this supporting blog post that they said was supporting the legislation, the broad-based legislation. This was from the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. This has been put out by staff to support her broad-based legislation. It says:

Almost all military disciplinary action occurs at the discretion of military officers, and with over 75% of the officer corps [being] white, systemic bias is not just a function of military justice, it's a foregone conclusion.

That is a pretty broad statement. That is a pretty broad statement. Where is the data to back that up? In essence, because you are a White commander, you are not going to give justice to minorities? I find that offensive as a commander who has commanded all kinds of Alaska Natives, African Americans, Hispanics, Whites.

So we can't base this broad-based legislation--all felonies--on this relatively new claim that does not have data supporting it that somehow we need to revamp the entire UCMJ because White commanders are racist. I don't think we should do it.

I want to work with Senator Gillibrand on these and other issues tomorrow. It will be an important debate. I am hopeful that the years of her hard work and data on this issue are going to result in a carve- out for sexual assault and related crimes of violence that will be bipartisan. It will be supported by the Secretary of Defense, the Service Secretaries. Again, I think Senator Gillibrand will deserve an enormous amount of credit for her determination over a decade to make that happen. But with regard to the broader legislation that she has asked for unanimous consent on, for the reasons I just discussed, I object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I just want to again compliment my colleague from New York, who has worked this issue hard. It is an emotional issue. I think we all have good intentions on this issue. We all want to get to the right answer for men and women in the military as it relates to these crimes and still have a force. As she said, it is the best military fighting force in the world.

I think we are going to have a good debate on this tomorrow, and I am certainly committed to continuing to work with Senator Gillibrand on these issues as they relate to the military and as they relate to the civilian world. They are enormously important, and I take them very seriously.

Again, I want to applaud her for her passion, her focus, her commitment. We wouldn't be this far in this debate at all if it weren't for her, and I have a lot of respect for that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source