Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 291.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 307, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 308, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Jenkins nomination; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the

Senate vote on confirmation of the Abruzzo nomination; that the cloture vote on the Jenkins nomination occur immediately upon disposition of the Abruzzo nomination; that if cloture is invoked on the Jenkins nomination, all postcloture time expire at 2:30 p.m.; finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Rubio.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise again--again--to call for every Senator to have a chance to vote on our bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. It is time to move the most serious crimes like sexual assault and murder out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of the most capable people in the military--independent, impartial, highly trained uniformed prosecutors.

This is an issue that deserves urgency. I have been calling for a full floor vote since May 24. Since that time, an estimated 3,136 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted and more will have been victims of other serious crimes. While I am heartened to see, after many years of pushing for reform, that growing numbers of our colleagues, the Department of Defense, and the President have acknowledged that we must move sexual assault and related crimes like sexual violence out of the chain of command, it is simply not enough.

I ask my colleagues to consider what it truly means to have special victim prosecutors looking only at cases of sexual assault and related crimes. It means that all the myriad crimes that are often linked to special victims' cases will get left out and pushed into a system that is not trained to see them for what they are.

Let's just take a simple case of a forged check. Say a soldier takes his girlfriend's checkbook and forges her name. If a commander looks at that, they are likely to take that at face value, see it as a simple, cut-and-dried case of someone stealing money from someone else, and move forward with nonjudicial punishment.

If a military prosecutor was to look at that same case, they might see something entirely different. That is because prosecutors are trained to see linkages between crimes. They are taught to ask different questions. So when they see a forged check, they ask: Is there more happening here? And there usually is.

Research has shown that financial abuse occurs in 99 percent of domestic violence cases. Financial abuse can be the means by which an abuser gains control in a relationship, and it is often the main reason a survivor stays with their abuser. While a prosecutor who has worked on cases of both financial crimes and domestic violence would know that, a commander wouldn't likely know.

The truth is, the realities of intimate partner violence go far beyond sexual assault and harassment. It can include forging checks and carrying out other forms of financial fraud, as well as other serious crimes.

We know that child endangerment can be linked to domestic violence and intimate partner violence, as can kidnapping. Arson can be the tool of someone attempting to cover up these

crimes. And murder, manslaughter, and murder of a pregnant woman can be, and often are, the final, tragic culmination of domestic violence. When these types of crimes are presented to commanders, they may be just the tip of an iceberg--the tip of an iceberg of cases that we all agree should be handled by a special prosecutor.

So if we truly want to help survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, we have to acknowledge that some of those crimes don't happen in a vacuum. We must remove all serious crimes out of the chain of command and into the hands of trained prosecutors who have the education, training, and experience that these cases require and that our servicemembers deserve.

The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act does exactly that, and it is supported by the major veterans service organization groups, as well as groups like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which recognize the true impact of this reform. It is also supported by a bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority of Senators who should be allowed the opportunity to cast their vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise again today to call for every Senator to have the opportunity to cast their vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

It is time for us to look at this issue to move serious crimes like sexual assault and murder out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of well-trained military prosecutors who are independent, impartial, and highly trained uniformed prosecutors.

This is an issue that deserves urgency. I began calling for this full floor vote on May 24. Since then, it is an estimate that 2,912 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted during that time; more will have been victims of other serious crimes. Many will not even report these crimes because they have no faith in the current system, where decisions about whether to prosecute are made by commanders and not trained lawyers. And yet this vote continues to be delayed and denied, week after week.

While I am glad to see that more of our colleagues have acknowledged that we must move sexual assault out of the chain of command, it is not enough. It doesn't address the fundamental flaw in the military justice system, which is that it asks commanders to act as judge and jury in highly complex crimes that they are not trained to do.

In fact, the training commanders get includes just a few hours, at the most, on legal topics like military justice and unlawful command influence. No one could be expected to learn in a few hours what it takes lawyers years of study and decades of experience to master.

That is why this bill would move serious crimes to the purview of those lawyers who have had the time to properly prepare for the job.

Today, I would like to outline exactly which crimes this bill would move out of the chain of command. Opponents have tried to misrepresent these crimes the bill addresses. It does not, for example, deal with larceny under $1,000 or destruction of government property. Those crimes would stay with the commander.

The bill includes a finite list of crimes. I will read them all now: recruit maltreatment, nonconsensual distribution of visual images, murder, manslaughter, murder of a pregnant mother, child endangerment, sexual assault, obscene mailing, sexual assault of a child, voyeurism, major financial crimes, major fraud, robbery, bribery, graft, kidnapping, arson, extortion, aggravated sexual assault, maiming, domestic violence, stalking, perjury, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.

That is it. That is the list. Those are crimes that have punishment of more than 1 year associated with them.

I ask those who oppose this reform to tell me why they would expect a commander with as little as a few hours of training to be prepared to try cases on obscene mailing or to be well versed on the elements of extortion. Tell me about the commander who understands the intricacies of using false documents to claim benefits or has the time to investigate complex financial frauds. Tell me about what leaves our commanders prepared to act as judge and jury in a murder trial or a kidnapping case.

Our bill simply recognizes that these are serious crimes that require legal expertise to properly review and prosecute. By moving these crimes to independent military lawyers, this reform allows commanders to focus on what they are trained to do: preparing our troops to fight and win our Nation's wars.

Additionally, the chairman has said that this bill would remove from the chain of command ``crimes that have been handled by the military chain of command effectively for years and years and years.''

But, actually, that is not the case. They haven't been handled effectively.

Just this week the Military Times reported on the case of Private Jonathan Lauture, who is alleged to have shot and killed Jason Lindsay in June 2019, when Lindsay entered Lauture's home in an attempt to intervene in a situation of domestic violence.

His chain of command at Fort Bliss was aware of the killing, but they did not inform the Army's criminal investigation division. Instead, they quickly reassigned him to Fort Stewart, where he continued to assault his wife.

The Military Times reports:

Army investigators had no idea that the shooting had even

occurred, much less the domestic violence. . . . Lauture's

Fort Bliss chain of command did not inform the CID of the

shooting. Nobody did, until a domestic violence investigation

in December 2019 by Fort Stewart CID incidentally learned

that Lauture had [allegedly] killed a man who was attempting

to rescue his wife.

That is how the current system handles alleged murder and domestic violence. It is not only ineffective, it is actively concealing information and hampering justice. That is why the current system is unacceptable.

We have to reform the system. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act is supported by experts, by servicemembers, and by a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of Senators if we bring it to the floor.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate.

They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on executive business.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at start of the first vote, to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 15, 2021, at start of the first vote, to conduct a hearing.

I rise today to call for every Senator to have a chance to consider and cast a vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill would ensure that people in the military who

have been subject to sexual assault or other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.

I know that my colleague from Oklahoma, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, reached out to our military chiefs for their thoughts on this bill. While there was, as Army GEN James McConville wrote, recognition ``that there are concerns with the way our current process pursues justice for major crimes,'' I understand that they also have concerns about this legislation, and I would like to allay those concerns today.

More broadly, the service chiefs' letters all seem to indicate a misunderstanding of how fundamental this change would be. Marine Corps Gen. David Berger, for instance, wrote that the bill ``appears to create a more complex system that could potentially slow the military justice process.'' Space Force Gen. John Raymond wrote that ``the proposed changes add a layer of complexity that needs to be fully understood.''

This bill would streamline, not complicate, the military justice process. The lawyers who would be making these prosecution decisions under our legislation are already working on these very cases.

Navy ADM Michael Gilday expressed concern that ``large scale removal of commanders' authority could cause sailors to doubt the capabilities of their commanders or to believe that their commanders operate without the full trust of their superiors.''

That worry is unfounded. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America surveyed their members--recent veterans--and 77 percent said that moving a serious crime like sexual assault out of the chain of command would have no impact on their view of the commander's authority. Nearly 1 in 10 said that the change would lead them to view their commander as more of an authority figure.

I would point out that the IRC Chairwoman, Lynn Rosenthal, said:

The IRC rejects the motion that, by moving legal decisions

about prosecution from the command structure, that commanders

would have no role. It's simply not the case. Commanders are

responsible for the climates they create. They're responsible

for working to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment,

and they're responsible for making sure that victims are

protected when they come forward to report. So, the idea that

they won't have an interest in solving this problem if they

are not making those technical legal decisions, we think, is

simply false.

I trust that our commanders will be able to maintain their authority and maintain their investment in the welfare of the troops without being responsible for deciding these serious crimes.

General Berger put it well. He wrote:

I expect commanders to always bear responsibility for their

Marines; changes like those in this bill will never relieve

commanders of their duty to care for and lead their Marines,

including when certain military justice processes are removed

from their control.

There were also questions about whether or not these changes were needed for all serious crimes. Admiral Gilday wrote that he had ``seen no evidence that there is a lack of trust among victims for all crimes for which the punishment exceeds one year of confinement.''

There is evidence. The Department of the Air Force inspector general conducted a survey in 2020 which found that one in three Black servicemembers said they believe the military discipline system is biased against them and that three in five Black servicemembers believe they do not and will not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their White peers if they get in trouble. That level of distrust must be addressed.

General Raymond also suggested a more limited reform, writing that beyond sexual assault, ``the other offenses are not as complex and do not require specialized training.'' On the contrary. Crimes included in our bill, like murder, manslaughter, fraud, and extortion, all present complex cases, and they deserve to be put in the purview of trained legal experts.

As you know, Mr. President, our bill has a bright line at felonies. To be a felony, it has to be a complex crime. Our bill does not include misdemeanors.

The service chiefs' letters also included calls to put an emphasis on preventing, rather than prosecuting, these crimes. I, too, would rather see these crimes not happen, which is why this bill includes various provisions on prevention efforts. But given the current reality, prevention is not enough. We must prosecute these serious crimes and show that there are real consequences for anyone who commits them. Doing so not only changes the culture, it will remove recidivists from the ranks, preventing them from committing more crimes.

Right now, there is a deep lack of trust in the current system and whether or not it can or will deliver justice. That is detrimental to our armed services. As General Raymond wrote, ``Lack of trust and reluctance to seek justice are, in themselves, readiness issues.''

I remind my colleagues that our job is to provide oversight and accountability over the executive branch, including the armed services, and to ensure that those who serve our country in uniform are being well served by their government.

As Berger noted, if the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not adequately ``promote justice'' or ``assist in maintaining good order and discipline,'' then it must change. The current system does not adequately promote justice, and it must change. It is our duty and our obligation to do the work to change it, and this body and every Senator in it deserves to have a vote.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again call for every Senator to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote for the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

The bill would remove all serious crimes except for military-specific crimes out of the chain of command and give it to trained military prosecutors to decide whether or not to move that case to trial. Making that change would end days of asking commanders, who are not trained lawyers, to make complex legal decisions in cases where they often know both the accuser and the accused. That change is necessary. It is necessary because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not to servicemembers of color.

I am proud that our legislation has recently won the endorsement of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, who have highlighted how this reform would address the systemic barriers to justice our servicemembers of color face. I want to thank the CBC for their strong support. I share their urgency when it comes to addressing those systemic injustices.

Right now, Black servicemembers are up to 2.61 times as likely to face disciplinary action as their fellow White servicemembers, and Black and Hispanic servicemembers are more likely than White servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial across the military services.

The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice began collecting data on race and courts-martial last June. Even in the brief period of time they have tracked, the disparities are tragically clear. In the Army, just 21.4 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but Black servicemembers account for 35.5 percent of the accused in general courts-martial. In the Air Force, just 14.7 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but they account for 23.1 percent of the accused. In the Navy, 17.2 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers are Black, but they account for 34.3 percent of the accused. Those figures speak to an inherent bias in the system that must be addressed.

Congressman Anthony Brown, who served in the military for 30 years and worked as an Army judge advocate general and as a clerk for then- Chief Judge Eugene Sullivan at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, recently wrote in the Washington Post about the need to pass this legislation.

He wrote:

Following the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna

Taylor and too many more Black and Brown Americans, there has

been a nationwide call to address the disparities in our

criminal justice system. But these efforts cannot overlook

the criminal justice system that is not on the front pages or

in [the] television news--[that is] the one in [the U.S.]

military. The current military justice system is not serving

our country's higher values of justice, equity and fairness.

It has put servicemembers of color at a disadvantage and left

them subject to a commander-controlled system they do not

trust.

In a survey last year of members of the Air Force and [in

the] Space Force, 3 in 5 Black servicemembers said they would

not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their White

peers if they faced disciplinary action. One-third believed

the military justice system is actively biased against them.

Those fears are corroborated by the facts. . . . Our

military justice system mirrors the discrimination in the

civilian criminal justice system, sometimes rising to a life-

or-death matter. A 2012 study showed that, before its last

use decades ago, nearly two-thirds of servicemembers

sentenced to death were servicemembers of color. These long-

standing disparities and this unjust system demand our

attention and action.

These disparities are longstanding. A task force established by President Nixon's Secretary of Defense in 1972 identified many of the same issues and same causal factors we see today. The task force reported:

In the course of our conversations with black and Spanish-

speaking [servicemembers] throughout the world, we became

convinced that the black or Spanish-speaking enlisted man is

often singled out for punishment by white authority figures

where his white counterpart is not. There is enough evidence

of intentional discrimination by individuals to convince the

Task Force that such selective punishment is in many cases

racially motivated.

I know that some of my colleagues have called for more time to study this issue. I would point them to a 2020 review from the Air Force inspector general, which found that for every year between 1999 and 2019, Black airmen were 60 percent more likely to face court-martial and 74 percent more likely to receive nonjudicial punishment from their commanders than their White counterparts. That is 20 years of data telling the same unacceptable story. What more proof do they need?

It has been nearly 50 years since the Nixon administration's task force brought this issue to light, and we have seen little positive change. Our servicemembers cannot wait any longer. Congressman Brown is right--this unjust system demands our attention and action.

As Members of Congress, we have the constitutional duty to provide oversight and accountability over the Department of Defense. We have the job of writing and revising and improving the military code of justice. It is a congressionally created code. Addressing these disparities is our responsibility and no one else's. This bill will help us do that. Now is the time to act.

In addition to the Congressional Black Caucus, this bill is supported by legal experts and servicemembers. It has the support of almost every veteran group I can find, from the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group to the Vietnam veterans group, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This is supported by our servicemembers and our veterans.

It also has the support of a growing number of bipartisan Congress Members in the House. It also has the support of 66 U.S. Senators--a filibuster-proof majority. If the vote were called today, it would pass. This bill should be voted on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of

S. 1520 and the Senate propose to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again call for every Senator to have an opportunity to vote on a generational bill to fix how the military deals with sexual assault and other serious crimes.

It is the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This bill will ensure that men and women who serve in our military have the opportunity for basic justice, basic civil liberties, and basic protection under the law.

I want to start by recognizing the monumental advance toward military justice reform made during our Senate work week. The Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military released their recommendations, which included removing the prosecution of sexual assault and related crimes from the chain of command. It is a historic sign of progress after decades of obstruction.

The Secretary of Defense has agreed with the Commission's findings that the removal of sexual assault prosecutions from the chain of command and the professionalization of the military justice system would benefit survivors and in no way diminish good order and discipline. It is also a historic sign of progress that President Biden has endorsed all of these recommendations.

After years--years--of pushing for these types of reforms, this change in thinking from our military and executive leadership is truly momentous. Every crime that the IRC reviewed, they recommended removing it from the chain of command. That is a clear recognition that the current military justice system is not capable of addressing the epidemic of sexual assault among our ranks and that it is not providing justice for our servicemembers.

As President Biden said, ``This is the beginning, not the end of our work.'' While I welcome the IRC's recommendations, I am deeply heartened to see that Secretary Austin and President Biden both endorse the recommendations and will happily work with us to make them a reality. We also have to recognize that the IRC was provided a very limited task--to review only sexual assault and harassment in the military. No other crimes were under their purview. Unfortunately, they were also not asked to look at other serious crimes that are related, such as murder.

We as a Congress have been tasked with a larger job. It is our job to ensure that the military writ large works for every servicemember. The recent scandals at Fort Hood, the murder of Vanessa Guillen, and the deep racial disparities in prosecutions have made it plain that the need for reform in the military justice system goes far beyond sexual assaults. Vanessa Guillen was murdered, and she was harassed. Serious crimes such as murder deserve the consideration of military lawyers who are trained with expertise, not commanders.

For those who worry about the impact that this reform would have on command authority, I would point to the head of the IRC, the chairwoman, Lynn Rosenthal, who said:

The IRC rejects the notion that, by removing legal

decisions about prosecution from the command structure, that

commanders have no role. It's simply not the case. Commanders

are responsible for the climates they create. They're

responsible for working to prevent sexual assault and sexual

harassment, and they're responsible for making sure that

victims are protected when they come forward to report. So,

the idea that they won't have an interest in solving this

problem if they are not making [a] technical, legal

[decision], we think, is simply false.

The same logic extends to all serious crimes. Commanders will still be responsible for setting the culture that prevents them, for protecting victims, and for maintaining an interest in solving these problems even if they are not making these complex, technical decisions about whether or not a case should go to trial. And in a great number of these cases that do not go forward to trial, they come back to the commander for the commander to use his discretion--nonjudicial punishment, summary court-martial, or special court-martial--the many tools he still has.

We must guarantee that we have a professional, unbiased system for all servicemembers. It is our constitutional duty to provide oversight and accountability over the Department of Defense. We are the authors of the military justice code. We are the ones who put it in place. It is Congress's duty to update it and to make sure it works. We can do that by taking this momentum and building upon it and passing the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act this year. We have the votes to pass it in committee. We have the votes to pass it on the floor. This is an issue we have been fighting for and talking about and having hearings on for 8 years.

I began calling for a full vote on the floor on this bill on May 24. Since then, an estimated 2,744 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted. More will have been victims of other serious crimes. All of them deserve justice, and it is our responsibility to provide it.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President.

First of all, our bill is entitled ``Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act,'' so, as the chairman has requested, there is a great deal of prevention in this bill. And I dare say, if the chairman was going to include all of the recommendations of the IRC, we would have a very strong base bill on which to work from, but I do not have the sense that that will be done. In fact, I do not have the sense that all the recommendations are being considered, so I intend to offer an amendment that encompasses all of the recommendations.

Second, the reason why murder and other serious crimes must be included is because there are two challenges within the military: One, sexual assault cases are not handled properly, and unfortunately too few go to trial and too few end in conviction. The rate of going to trial and the rate of conviction has gone down.

The second reason is, if you only allow sexual assault cases to have a proper review, you will further marginalize survivors of sexual assault, who, more often than not, are women who report those cases, because receiving special treatment and a special legal system will not create fairness within the military for them.

Third, there is enormous evidence in the last 3 years of considerable racial bias against Black and Brown servicemembers. In the marines, if you are a Black man, you are up to 2.6 times more likely to be punished. That is a serious problem, and this is an issue that has been investigated for a long time.

So I believe that the bright line of felonies, as our allies have already done in the UK, Israel, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and Australia, is meaningful because they did it for defendants' rights, they did it to professionalize their military justice system, and they did it to protect all servicemembers. Servicemembers in the U.S. military deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.