Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise for the eighth time to call for this entire body to have the opportunity to vote on and consider the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

This commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.

I ask for this vote because I want to ensure that this important reform, which is backed by a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of the Senators, becomes law. If we leave this debate and this reform to the national defense authorization committee review, I have no doubts that that will not happen.

We all know how a bill becomes a law. It passes the Senate and the House, and is signed by the President. And we all know how this process can be subverted. We have seen popular provisions that have passed both the House and the Senate be minimized, watered down, or removed in conference altogether. And I have certainly seen good proposals killed behind closed doors of the NDAA markup.

In 2019, I introduced a much smaller reform called Safe to Report. That provision was designed to improve reporting rates by allowing survivors of sexual assault to report the assault without fear of retaliation in the form of misconduct charges for related minor offenses, things like underage drinking or breaking a curfew.

That commonsense reform, which could have allowed more survivors to come forward, passed in both the House and the Senate, but it was removed in conference. We had to reintroduce the very same bill the following year in order for it to be included and become law in the next year, the fiscal year 2021 NDAA.

If a program focused solely on helping to make it easier for survivors to report their assault was removed in conference, I have little reason to believe that this once-in-a-generation reform will survive.

Given the lack of progress we have made on sexual assault in the military and the entrenched problems with the military justice system, we cannot allow this widely supported reform to be left to the whims of those working behind closed doors in conference--a process with a rich history of subverting reforms on behalf of the Department of Defense. Let us have this vote in the Senate, and let us send it to the House to become law.

Every day we delay this vote is another day we deny justice to the survivors of sexual assault. We deny justice to servicemembers who have been affected by serious crimes. We deny justice to the men and women who do so much for this country. We owe it to them to not wait another minute longer.

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 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, there are several reasons why I disagree strongly with the chairman.

First of all, this is not a complex reform. In fact, only one thing changes: After the military police conclude their investigation, instead of the case file being handed over to the commander's JAG, the case file is handed over to the prosecutor, who might eventually have gotten that case anyway. The prosecutor reviews the case file and decides whether or not to prosecute.

If he decides not to prosecute, he will send it back to the commander. Only 3 percent of commanders have this job; 97 percent of commanders' jobs will not be affected by this change. And then they will get to do what they typically do, which is to review the case; perhaps, ask for nonjudicial punishment for related crimes; perhaps, do a special court-martial. That sits with the commander.

The second reason why I disagree with the chairman is that if you remove only one crime from the commander, you will essentially create an entirely different system just for survivors of sexual assault, who are more often to be women who report those crimes. Even though males suffer more from sexual assault, they just don't report them, and that, therefore, will become a special court for women servicemembers. And experts have said that it will further marginalize them, it will further diminish them, it will further alienate them. It will be a special court for women, or a ``pink court.''

Third, this reform has already taken place in the countries of our allies. The UK did it over 10 years ago for defendants' rights. Israel did it over 40 years ago. Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Germany--all have taken serious crimes out of the chain of command.

And in each of those instances, they have said it has not reduced good order discipline, and it has not had any impact on command and control.

And so the truth is that this is a change whose impact will be to give survivors of sexual assault and any survivor of a serious crime the confidence that the military justice system is unbiased and highly trained.

The other reason why this change is so necessary to be a bright line at all serious crimes is defendants' rights. And I can tell you that we now have data developed in 2017 from Protect Our Defenders, a report that says that it is up to 2.5 times more likely for Black and Brown servicemembers to be punished than White servicemembers. That is a shocking statistic--a shocking statistic.

So I believe that if you create a bright line at serious crimes, you will not only improve the system for survivors of sexual assault but for all litigants--plaintiffs and defendants--and you will protect the civil liberties and civil rights of Black and Brown servicemembers from a defendant's rights perspective.

The committee has had 8 years to debate, discuss, have hearings, and pass legislation. We have passed nearly 250 bills on this topic. They have lost their sole jurisdiction over this issue. They have failed to improve sexual assaults in the military, and it is now time for an up- or-down vote, which has 66 cosponsors in this body. It is now time for an up-or-down vote on our bill. It should no longer be the purview of the NDAA and the Armed Services Committee because they have been unwilling to have a vote on this for over 5 years and unwilling to take a serious look at how to fix these injustices within our military.

Our military servicemembers deserve a military justice system worthy of the sacrifices they make every day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise for the seventh time to call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their votes for the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

This commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault or other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.

In the 8 years that I spent advocating for this reform, with many other Senators, I have heard some criticism from those who would rather not see change to our military justice system. I wanted to take this time to briefly respond to a few of those criticisms.

First, I have heard that the bill will add bureaucracy to the process. The fact is, this bill actually cuts redtape. Instead of needing to find time on a commander's busy schedule for a military prosecutor to brief them on the case, the prosecutor's recommendations, instead, become the prosecutor's decision.

Under this law, prosecutors who understand complex military justice concepts like unlawful command influence and evidentiary standards make the decision, rather than a commander whose time is better spent focusing on warfighting than on learning the evidentiary rules. I have to wonder if these critics have actually read the bill, since it specifically requires the services to use existing resources that we have already provided to accomplish this reform.

Second, detractors worry that this law will result in fewer prosecutions. The opposite is true. Under the current system, only about one-third of survivors are willing to even come forward to report a crime. When 64 percent of victims are retaliated against for coming forward and less than 1 percent of victims actually sees a conviction, who can blame them?

When we put complex cases in the hands of impartial, professional prosecutors, both victims and the accused will have more faith and more confidence in the system. The more confidence survivors have in the system, the more they are likely to come forward. And the more survivors who come forward, the more offenders we can prosecute.

Third, those who would rather push off this reform to maintain the status quo sometimes say that there is a lack of data to support the policy and worry that it would somehow collapse good order and discipline. There is no lack of data on justice systems to pull from.

Our major Western allies have implemented systems like this, and in country after country, this type of reform, just like other military justice reforms, has improved good order and discipline.

In Israel, for example, this system brought survivors out of the shadows and gave them confidence to report. From 2012 to 2017, the Israeli military saw a 91-percent increase in willingness to report crimes. During that same period, the U.S. military saw an increase of only 33 percent. Despite the success of the #MeToo movement, we are still lagging so far behind in fostering a military climate where victims feel safe to come forward.

Year after year, detractors have had the same dogmatic response: Commanders will be unable to maintain good order and discipline if we make this change. Well, I have talked to commanders who have seen the need for change, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. They can start with my cosponsor, Senator Joni Ernst. If commanders feel this authority is essential to their ability to lead, then they have a lot more to learn about leadership.

Last, we have the argument that is developing that, if we do make this change, to just make it a little bit. Let's just do it for one crime. Let's just do it for the crime of sexual assault.

Well, we have an editorial today that was published in The Hill. The headline is, ``Military justice reform, `pink court' and unit cohesion.'' These were four military experts who wrote this editorial, and I will read a quote from it.

President Biden, Secretary Austin and members of the House

and Senate may be tempted to settle on a compromise under

which only sex offenses would be subject to prosecution

decision making by lawyers rather than non-lawyer commanders.

After all, they may believe, it's those offenses that have

given rise to this entire controversy, so let's just fix

that.

That may be the way the process unfolds from here, but it

would be a mistake--and a tragic one, given the difficulty of

getting Congress to focus on military justice in a sustained

way. It would take years for the military justice system to

recover if Congress takes the wrong path at the current fork

in the legislative road.

It goes on to talk about two reasons this would be harmed. The first lies with the fact that there is bias in the system and that this bias cannot be eradicated by just taking out one crime, that it should be for all serious crimes.

I will read from the text again.

Second, even though men as well as women in uniform are

victims of sexual assault, public concern has chiefly focused

on the women. It is concern over them and their willingness

to come forward without fear of retaliation that has given

the reform issue such potency. As a practical matter, if a

parallel system is created for the disposition of sex

offenses, that system will be understood as having been

created chiefly for the benefit of women in uniform. Congress

will, in effect, have created ``pink courts''--courts for

women.

Creating ``pink courts'' will destroy unit cohesion. It is

difficult to imagine a surer way of turning back the clock on

all the progress our country has made in integrating women in

uniform, including opening occupational specialties,

admission to the service academies, qualification as pilots

of warplanes and commanders of naval ships and Coast Guard

cutters, and promotion to flag and general officer ranks.

Congress should transfer the charging power for all felony-

level offenses by military personnel to uniformed prosecutors

independent of the chain of command. Limiting the transfer to

sex offenses makes no sense.

One argument that was not included in here is that, if you do limit it to just one crime, you don't address the issue of defendants' rights. Now, with so much data we have available about racial biases in prosecution and conviction and punishment, it is right that we care about both plaintiffs' rights and defendants' rights and reform the entire system.

These unfounded arguments are nothing more than delay tactics. Every day we delay this vote, we deny justice to our servicemembers--the people who do so much for us and so much for this country. There is no reason to wait any longer.

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 Committee on Armed Services be discharged from the 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 7 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, June 10, 2021, at 11:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 2021, at 10 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, June 10, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

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, June 10, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 10, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

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

Mr. President, I rise for the sixth time to call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their votes on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who are subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes have the opportunity to get the justice that they deserve.

Under the current system, fewer than 1 in 10 sexual assault cases that are considered for command action are sent to trial, and under the current culture, nearly 2 in 3 sexual assault survivors experience some form of retaliation for reporting that crime. That means a survivor of sexual assault is far more likely to face consequences than an assailant.

When a 2016 Pentagon survey showed that 58 percent of survivors perceived retaliation for reporting their assaults, commanders said it was unacceptable, and Congress demanded action; but instead of working to change the system or the culture, the response was to make retaliation a specific crime, despite the fact that it already was a chargeable offense under title 10, section 1034 of the United States Code. It was nothing more than window dressing. We know that is true because, in 2018, when the same survey came out again, the perceived retaliation rate went up to 64 percent.

The DOD estimates that 20,500 servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year. So you may wonder: How many documented prosecutions for retaliation did we see in the most recent year? The answer: One. Only one person has been charged for retaliation in the last year, and there have been zero convictions reported. To me, that seems more of a joke.

Under our bill, the ability to charge and prosecute retaliation would move outside the chain of command, giving survivors more confidence to come forward in knowing the prosecutors would be free to protect them. Under the status quo and under the chairman's proposal, the ability to prosecute remains in the wrong hands.

It is time to remove retaliation and other serious crimes from the purview of the chain of command. It is time to professionalize the military justice system to remove bias, protect our servicemembers, and deliver justice.

The numbers speak for themselves, and every single number represents a person--a survivor, a family member. We owe it to our survivors-- those who have gone through the horrific experience of being assaulted only to experience retaliation from their fellow brothers and sisters in arms--to change this system. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act will make the changes that they need.

Every day we delay a vote on this legislation is another day we deny justice to our servicemembers--the people who do so much for and give so much to our country. There is no reason to make them wait any longer.

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 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.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 13 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is

authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on

Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized

to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June

9, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the

session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 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

Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing a nomination.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during

the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 10

a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is

authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on

Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on

Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of

the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., to

conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Economic Policy

The Subcommittee on Economic Policy of the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 2021,

at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I rise to ask that the Senate be given the chance to consider and vote on the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

Before I discuss the bill, I would like to first acknowledge that we have just returned from Memorial Day recess and to recognize the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our country and to protect our freedom. They got on a plane or they got on a ship; they went to countries they may never have been to before; they fought for our country; and they didn't come home.

We ask so much of our servicemembers and their families, and we owe it to them to take action when they are in danger. That is why I want to talk about this bill right now.

Sexual assault in the military is an epidemic. Year after year, reports of sexual assault have gone up, but conviction rates and prosecution rates have actually come down. This stems from a fundamental problem which has to be addressed: There is bias in our military justice system.

Right now, if you are a victim of sexual assault or another serious crime, the decision to prosecute goes to a commander, not to a trained military prosecutor. And while our commanders are exceptional leaders and exceptional warfighters, they are not legal experts, nor should they be asked to be. Nor can commanders be truly independent when considering charges against a subordinate or charges made by a subordinate.

This bill removes the decision of whether to prosecute sexual assaults or any other serious crime out of the chain of command and gives it to trained military prosecutors, where it belongs. This would establish something fundamental to our justice system: blind justice. It is a simple change. It is a change that is supported by legal experts, by JAGs, by commanders, by generals, by admirals, by veterans.

Opponents of this bill--and their numbers are dwindling--claim that this one change would somehow undermine good order and discipline. Well, I will tell you, I have heard that one before. It is the same weak argument they have made time and time again.

Many people stood on this floor and said that we could not repeal don't ask, don't tell because it undermined good order and discipline. When we wanted to integrate the military and have Black servicemembers serve, we were told we couldn't possibly do that; it would undermine good order and discipline. We made the case that LGBTQ members should be able to serve openly, that trans members should be able to serve openly. We were told: You can't possibly do that; it would undermine good order and discipline. When we asked for women to be able to serve in combat, something they had been doing for a very long time but not necessarily getting credit for it, we were told: You can't possibly do that; it will undermine good order and discipline.

But each of those times Congress rose to the occasion and did the right thing and did the thing that was necessary to make our military stronger, and each time our military became stronger.

Further undermining this argument is the fact that this system, or versions very similar to it, are being used today by our allies that we fight side by side, allies like the UK or Israel or Germany or Netherlands or Australia or Canada. They did not see a degradation of good order and discipline. They told us so.

Finally, in addition to the opposition to this bill being a weak argument, the support for this bill is strong, and that support continues to grow. How many bills have you heard of in this Congress, or the last, or the last, or the last that have 66 cosponsors? Widely bipartisan. How many bills have Liz Warren and Ted Cruz on them or Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer in support of? It doesn't happen very often.

But this is something that I and many Senators in this Chamber have been working on for 8 years, holding hearings on for 8 years, making amendments in the NDAA for 8 years, making the case that this change is needed for 8 years. And through all that work and through all that advocacy, we now have 66 cosponsors--a majority of the Senate, a majority of the Armed Services Committee. This bill deserves a vote. This bill deserves to have the Senate vote on it now. It is time to pass this law, and it is time to do our jobs.

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, while the chairman does agree that the serious crime of sexual assault should be taken out of the chain of command, our bill requests and requires that all serious crimes be taken out of the chain of command because of the existence of bias. And we have two data points that prove that bias. One is the poor results we have seen for survivors of sexual assaults over the last 10 years that data has been collected, and the second data point we have, which has been developed over the last 3 years, is the existence of racial bias.

Protect Our Defenders did a serious report in 2017, and it determined that across all services, looking at all punishments, Black and Brown servicemembers were punished approximately two times more often than White servicemembers, looking at both nonjudicial and court-martials. And that show of bias means that the military justice system isn't working for many people. It is not working for plaintiffs, and it is not working for defendants.

And, in fact, when our allies looked at this same issue, particularly defendants' rights over the last 40 years, they determined that bias in the system was incompatible with their views of justice, and they decided that for defendants' rights, specifically, all serious crimes should be decided by trained military prosecutors.

So this solution is one we have been debating in the committee for 8 years, and, in fact, we have used compromises

and smaller steps and small-ball measures over the last 8 years to address this problem. Unfortunately, despite putting in place approximately 250 new measures over the last 8 years, the rate of conviction and the rate of prosecution is still going down, but the rate of sexual assault has stayed persistent at approximately 20,000 incidents a year.

So while I appreciate that my colleague is coming to the conclusion that one serious crime should be taken out of the chain of command, military experts disagree that a line should be drawn around only one crime because they believe that that will result in unfair systems of justice--two systems of justice and one that does not meet the needs of bias that we see in the current system.

Second, we have many combat veterans on this legislation. Joni Ernst is one of our lead sponsors, who is the only female Republican combat veteran and who has also experienced sexual assault. Mark Kelly is on our bill. Tammy Duckworth is on our bill. Gary Peters is on our bill. Josh Hawley is on our bill. And we also have many of our attorneys general on this bill, people who have looked at the law from a perspective of civil rights and civil liberties, such as Richard Blumenthal.

This matters, and I believe that we have given the committee 8 years to solve this problem.

Third, when we have given the opportunity to the committee to solve this problem and pass meaningful--meaningful--reforms, if the DOD disagreed with those reforms, despite passing in the House and in the Senate, they have seen fit to make sure those reforms have been taken out in conference. One such example was legislation we passed in 2019 creating a ``safe to report'' provision, which would have allowed survivors of sexual assault to come forward to report the crime but not be prosecuted for related smaller crimes, such as drinking or being off base.

That language passed the Senate. It passed the House. And, miraculously, because the DOD didn't approve, it was taken out in conference. In 2020, the Senators who worked on that provision, Senator Ernst and I, made very clear that we did not appreciate staff members taking out work and provisions that had been considered and voted on by Senators as part of their responsibility. And we were able to pass it the second time.

So, unfortunately, Mr. President, I don't have faith that if we allow the committee to look at this bill and pass it in the Senate and the House, that it will not be watered down or taken out in conference without the consent of all the Senators who voted for it.

Therefore, I urge this body to allow for an up-or-down vote on this Senate floor. That is a privilege that was given ``don't ask, don't tell'' repeal because of similar filibusters by members of the Armed Services Committee. When we voted on ``don't ask, don't tell,'' it was an up-or-down Senate vote. This deserves the same opportunity.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again ask that every Senator have a chance to consider and cast their vote on the Military Justice

Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.

This bill would ensure that when crimes are committed in our military, justice is delivered. This commonsense reform, which has bipartisan, filibuster-proof support, moves the decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes to independent, trained, and professional military prosecutors, while leaving misdemeanors and uniquely military crimes within the chain of command. In other words, it takes the same approach to criminal justice that the military takes in most other areas of operation. It puts highly technical work in the hands of trained specialists.

This is not a new concept. I first introduced a similar form of this legislation in 2013.

This is not a new idea that requires hypothetical thinking. This system or a version of it is already being used by our allies around the world to positive effect. Australia has moved charging decisions for serious crimes from the chain of command to the director of military prosecutions, as has Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland. In France, charging decisions are made by lawyers, not by commanders. Germany tries military cases in civilian courts with civilian authorities. In Italy, charging decisions are made by judge advocates, who are fully independent of the chain of command. The Netherlands assigns charging decisions to public prosecutors with broad experience in military cases. Norway uses military prosecuting authority for criminal offenses by military personnel. The UK moved serious crimes out of the chain of command in 2009 as part of an effort to provide an independent and impartial tribunal to the accused. In Israel, charging decisions are made by judge advocates whose sole commander is the military advocate general, a general officer.

I will note that the Israeli system is almost identical to the procedures set forth in our bill. Israel has not seen a decrease in good order and discipline and, in fact, has seen increased reporting and faith in their military justice system.

These countries took serious crimes out of the chain of command because they believed that defendants have a right to civil liberties. They recognized that servicemembers deserve a trial not led by a commander, who often has no legal experience or education, but by trained criminal lawyers.

When they made these changes, they did not see a diminution in command control or the ability to maintain good order and discipline within their ranks. In fact, when we stop asking commanders to act as judge and jury in complex cases, they will have more time to focus on rebuilding the trust and cohesion among their ranks that we know is critical to military readiness.

We pride ourselves on having the best military in the world. To maintain it, we need to do more to make it safe for everyone to serve. Our allies have already done this. Every day we don't act is a day we fall further behind on this front.

This is a tried and tested system. It has delivered change for our allies that the incremental reforms put in place by the Armed Services Committee have not delivered to our servicemembers. This reform has been tested; requested by survivors, veterans, and commanders; backed by experts in military justice; and supported by 65 Senators. There is no reason to delay a vote on the floor any further.

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 would like to actually give some information to the chairman about what these other nations' leaders have actually said about this issue.

Major General Blaise Cathcart, advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces, wrote:

The 1999 changes to the military justice system were battle

tested in the theater of active operations and, in my view,

were a key contributor to combat effectiveness of the

Canadian armed forces. The current military justice system

contributed substantially to the fielding and sustainment of

a disciplined and efficient force with high morale.

Air Commander Paul Cronan, director general of the Australian Defense Force Legal Service:

At this point, it's appropriate to reflect on the effect of

the reforms made to the Australian military justice system in

2003 and 2006. These reforms have undoubtedly had a

significant and positive impact on the efficacy,

impartiality, and perceived fairness of Australia's military

justice system. This is a fact confirmed by a number of

subsequent independent reviews of the effectiveness of the

2003 and 2006 reforms. As a result of their independent

review, they concluded that the reforms had been effective,

and that as a result of these reforms, ``The military justice

system is delivering and should continue to deliver

impartial, rigorous, and fair outcomes. Enhanced transparency

and enhanced oversight is substantially more independent from

the chain of command, and is effective in maintaining a high

standard of discipline both domestically and in the

operational theater.''

In the UK, Commander Andrei Spence, Commodore Naval Legal Service, Royal Navy, UK:

Probably the most pressing question that you need answering

from me, and if I may preempt it slightly at the risk of

being too forthcoming, is what's the effect on command of our

changes? How do they view it? Do they feel disempowered,

disenfranchised? I have to say that the simple answer to that

is no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter this testimony into the Record

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, which would ensure people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.

I rise on behalf of the supporters of this bill, including a bipartisan, filibuster-proof group of 65 Senators, major veterans service organizations, and the veterans they represent. Every day we delay a vote on this bill is another day that their voices are being silenced.

Our legislation makes the commonsense reform that our veterans and our servicemembers have asked for. It takes a decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes out of the chain of command and moves it to independent, trained, military prosecutors. This will create a system that is free of bias and capable of fairly trying these complex crimes.

This legislation, as I mentioned, is supported by the Nation's major veterans service organizations. These organizations recognize that this reform would build a military justice system worthy of the service of our members--a system that delivers justice, consequences, and convictions.

This bill is supported by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Their CEO, Jeremy Butler said:

The status quo with our military chain of command's

response to military sexual assault is not working and this

continuing threat to our military requires this commonsense

solution to protect our servicemembers.

It is supported by the American Legion, which recognizes that this legislation will ``improv[e] the system by which the Department of Defense investigates and prosecutes reported cases of military sexual trauma so that it is on par with the civilian system.''

It is supported by Protect Our Defenders. Retired Col. Don Christensen, the president of Protect Our Defenders said:

Every year, generals come before Congress and tell Congress

that sexual assault is a cancer in the force. This is a

readiness issue. This is a force protection issue. This is an

issue that drives out thousands of good men and women every

year who want to serve. This [reform] will finally see the

justice that our members deserve and the prevention they

deserve.

It is supported by the Vietnam Veterans of America. In a letter of support for this legislation, national president John Rowan wrote:

After decades of hearing that the military will not

tolerate military sexual assaults and that it has zero

tolerance of such, the numbers continue to climb.

Vietnam Veterans of America believes it is time to make real change to the process if real action is to be taken in its attention to the victims and the violence. Fear of reporting the crime of sexual assault is a barrier in addressing the justice these victims deserve. Their legal counsel and defense counsel should be no less than a civilian receives in our court system.

This bill is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which accounts for more than 1.5 million veterans as members. It is supported by Common Defense. It is supported by SWAN, the Service Women's Action Network. It is supported by the Veterans Recovery Project. It is supported by the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

These are veterans. These are our constituents, our fellow Americans, and these are people who have put their lives on the line for this country and seen firsthand the way the current

military justice system fails our servicemembers. They know better than anyone else what change needs to be made, and they are asking to pass this bill.

Do not silence their voices. Let this vote come to the floor.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield back all time, and I support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve.

I first introduced this legislation in 2013. Since then, the committee has had 8 years to consider it, to ask questions, to pursue changes, and to implement alternative solutions, and we have. In fact, over the period of 15 years, the committee enacted nearly 250 legislative provisions designed to address the scourge of sexual assault in the military. We have modified data reporting requirements. We have added questions to surveys. We have required annual reports on the status of sex offense investigations. We have required developments of strategies to hold leadership accountable. We have chartered special panels, commissions, and advisory committees to address this problem, and we have enacted their recommendations.

We have made scores of small adjustments, and they have just not moved the needle. The most recent annual report from the Department of Defense proves it. Reports of sexual assault have increased virtually every single year and remain at record highs, while prosecution and conviction rates have declined. The current system is not working. We need real reform, and we have the legislation to do it.

In 2014, I asked for a vote on this bill, and it earned majority support--55 votes--but it was filibustered. In 2015, again I earned majority support, but it was filibustered. I asked for a vote in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and I was denied every single time.

I am again asking on behalf of servicemembers who do so much for this country, who will sacrifice themselves and their lives for this Nation, and on behalf of the bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority of Senators who support this legislation and want to enact this reform, and this vote is being denied again.

How long must our servicemembers wait for real reform? How long must they wait for a criminal justice system that is worthy of their sacrifice? There is no persuasive argument for the need to allow more time to consider this legislation in committee. The committee has had nearly a decade to consider it. Most Members of this body have had years to consider it, and those who have had the least time to consider it, our newest Members, have already seen the need for reform. Nine out of ten new Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, including the two new members of the Armed Services Committee, have already cosponsored this bill.

This bill is now supported by 64 bipartisan Senators who deserve to have the opportunity to cast a vote for this important bill. We don't have to take the time for another incremental step. It is time to bring this vote to the floor.

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 time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I continue to advocate for the ability of this body to vote up or down on this bill. This is an important moment in our Nation's history. This is a generational change whose time has come.

Previously, when such important reforms were needed, such as the don't ask, don't tell repeal, they were brought directly to the floor. It is time to bring this to the floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the need to reform our military justice system.

Just this month, the Department of Defense released its annual report on sexual assault in the military. That report and more than a decade of data on sexual assault in the military show a clear and disturbing trend. Reports of sexual assault have increased virtually every single year and remain at record highs, while prosecution and conviction rates have declined, including a shocking 10 percent point decline in the prosecution rate from last year. By every measure that you can imagine, we are moving in the wrong direction.

Congress has given the military more than $1 billion--$500 million in fiscal year 2019 alone--enacted hundreds of provisions, and chartered special panels, Commissions, and advisory committees to address this problem. Not one of these steps has reduced the prevalence rate of sexual assaults within the ranks. We are still getting reports like the one we got from Fort Hood, which found that the world's largest Army base was ``a permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment.'' We are right where we started. Nothing has changed.

I have heard from too many survivors who have barely come forward in search of justice, only to have their cases outright declined by the chain of command and then face more harassment and retaliation for reporting their assailant. We owe it to our servicemembers to do more to prevent these crimes and properly prosecute them when they occur.

Our bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, would ensure that, when these crimes are committed, justice is delivered. It does so by taking the same approach to these cases that the military takes in almost every other area of operation. It puts highly technical work in the hands of trained specialists.

This bipartisan and commonsense reform moves the decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes to independent, trained, and professional military prosecutors while leaving misdemeanors and uniquely military crimes within the chain of command. In other words, it will let prosecutors prosecute and commanders command.

By moving this work off of the commander's plate, it will empower command to focus on mission-critical activities and on rebuilding the trust among their ranks that we know is critical to military readiness.

This bill is not political. It is about doing the right thing for our servicemembers who do so much for this Nation.

The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act has bipartisan, filibuster-proof support. It is supported by 63 Senators, including 42 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 19 Republicans, and the majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee. If we brought this bill to the floor today, it would pass.

We have the legislation, and we have the votes. Now we just need the will to act. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in working to pass this bill as quickly as possible. As this week's Department of Defense report makes clear, our servicemembers do not have time to wait.

I yield the floor to Senator Grassley.

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, well, I just want to respond to my colleagues and chairman and ranking member. While I am extremely grateful for their leadership and their willingness to review and take on the IRC recommendations, the IRC recommendations are limited. It was only a 60-day review of the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment only. It did not look at the military justice system overall. It did not have the benefit of 8 years of review, study, and passing related amendments and changes.

Our committee has passed over 200--or nearly 250--different resolutions and changes to how the military deals with sexual harassment and sexual assault, to no effect.

Deferring only to the IRC, which is an unelected panel that has only looked at this issue for 60 days, is not sufficient. Not only do we have Senators on the Armed Services Committee who have been studying this issue for 8 years, making recommendations and passing laws on this topic for 8 years, it would seem that to defer to a panel that has only looked at this issue for 60 days, to one issue, seems irresponsible.

Second, I do not believe that issues of this weight and of this significance should be dealt with the committee only. The Armed Services Committee has been working on this issue for 10 years, and we have seen no improvement in the number of sexual assaults in the military and on the rate of prosecution and the rate of conviction. That is highly problematic.

Also, when I asked for a vote on this measure over the last several years, I have been denied a vote on this measure on the floor by the chairman and the ranking member. So they have been unable or unwilling to allow me to have a vote, given all the bipartisan support we have had from the beginning.

This bill has been bipartisan from day one. Senator Grassley has been on this bill from day one, as have several other Republicans. Today, we now have 63 cosponsors to this legislation--widely bipartisan--and more than half of the Armed Services Committee. We have established that the weight of this Senate, in a filibuster-proof majority, wants a floor vote on this and does not want to leave it up to the committee.

The Armed Services Committee has lost their opportunity to claim sole jurisdiction over this issue by failing to improve this situation over the last 10 years. In fact, the 250 measures that we passed were all approved by various panels that took 60 days or 90 days or a year to review this issue, and we willingly took those recommendations and turned them into law.

I, too, will willingly take the recommendations of the IRC board and turn them into law because they are good and thoughtful recommendations, but they are limited. By design, they were only allowed to look at two crimes--sexual assault and sexual harassment-- and by not looking at all serious crimes, you are not looking at the weight of the problem.

We now have evidence that has been developed since 2017 about racial disparities and how the criminal justice system in the military works.

Protect Our Defenders issued a significant report that can be found at https:\\www.protectourdefenders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ Report_20.pdf.

Mr. President, that report will show that Black servicemembers were at least 1.29 times and as much as 2.61 times more likely to have disciplinary action taken against them in an average year across all branches from 2006 to 2015. These disparities largely did not improve and in some cases worsened in the most recent years covered.

So we have other challenges within the military justice system, and now we have two areas where we have data that the military itself has collected. On sexual assault, we have 10 years of data, and now on racial disparities and racism within the military, we have data over the last 3 years, and that has to be considered as well.

So the way to fix both of these problems is really simple: Professionalize the military justice system. Allow serious crimes to be taken out of the chain of command and given to trained military prosecutors who do not have bias and have highly specialized training.

If we professionalize the military justice system, we will see justice done because there will be less bias in the system and there will be more professionalism. The combination of those two things, we believe, based on what military members have told us, will result in more cases going forward and more prosecutions.

Second, we have the support of military justice experts. We have a letter from the National Institute of Military Justice:

The National Institute of Military Justice recommends

transferring prosecutorial discretion not only for all sex

offenses, but also for all serious offenses--those for which

the authorized maximum punishment exceeds one year's

confinement. The dividing line is a familiar feature [in the]

American criminal justice [system].

These changes will strengthen the fairness of military

justice and bolster public confidence in the administration.

Similarly, we have a piece published in the Marine Corps Gazette by Capt. Lambert Jackson, who has prosecuted these cases. He served as trial counsel for the 2nd Marine Division and is complex trial counsel.

He fundamentally understands the nature of these cases. He was an operational law attorney in the 1st Marine Division. He says:

Felony prosecution determinations must be vested with

trained military attorneys rather than commanders;

disentangling commanders from the often-ugly legal

determinations for which they are ill-trained will allow

commanders to more effectively focus their attention on

preparing their units for conflict.

While I appreciate the willingness to take the recommendations of the panel that General Austin has impaneled to look at just two crimes and while I agree that we should accept those recommendations--and I intend to push them into the mark through our personnel subcommittee--we also should look at the reforms that 63 Senators want done. We should also look at the reforms that are supported by more than half of the Armed Services Committee members. We deserve a floor vote, and we deserve a process that cannot be undermined by the committee.

I have served on this committee for 10 years, and the chairman well understands that in conference, bills that have passed both sides have been taken out.

You do not have to look further than what happened to the safety report language. It was passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and it is safe to report, by the way, that it was offered in the Senate by Senator Ernst and me in the Armed Services Committee because it would deal with retaliation. That bill was passed in the Senate, passed in the House, and taken out in conference. That is a problem.

I do not want to expose this massive reform that is a generational reform to the whims of those who decide what gets taken out in conference. It is not acceptable to me to be watered down or reduced or minimized by those in conference. That is the risk you run by not allowing this to have a floor vote, which it deserves.

Madam President, one of the concerns I have is that we have been studying this issue and debating this issue for years.

We have had several floor debates. We had two floor debates because we only got to vote on it twice. Both times, we had the majority of the Senate promoting this provision.

What we have is a record of our allies already making this change, not for the issue of sexual assault in the military but for the issue of defendants' rights. The UK, Israel, Germany, Netherlands, Australia all took serious crimes, a bright-line of felonies out of the chain of command because they believed that a defendant had a right to basic civil liberties. When they did so, they did not see a diminution in command control or the ability to have good order and discipline within the ranks. And they wrote to one of the many panels that we have had over the past 10 years--that information--to tell them that this is a change we have made. And the UK even said this was a change that our commanders basically didn't notice.

So this is not some untested, out-of-the-box idea. This is an idea that is supported by the survivors, by veterans, by commanders, by experts in military justice, and by our allies. I believe that our servicemembers deserve a criminal justice system worthy of the sacrifices they make.

Last, I do not think this is a moment to defer to the committee. The committee has failed survivors over the last 10 years, and I do not think it is in their purview to make this ultimate decision. When we had a vote on the ``don't ask, don't tell'' repeal--something that was similarly a generational change--it was done on a floor vote, an up-or- down vote, and we had that vote twice. It was called twice because the first time Republicans refused to participate in the vote. We called it again, and we had the 60 votes we needed to overcome a filibuster.

I believe this vote is also a once-in-a-generation vote that needs the review and the vote of the entire Senate because, not only does the Congress have the responsibility to oversee the military and the entire executive branch, but this whole body has the ability to oversee individual committees if they aren't going far enough when the moment demands it.

I believe this is some such time. We are here for a time such as this. We should do our job. We should vote on this measure, and it should be an up-or-down floor vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would simply state that we have already established that this is something that should become law. We already have 63 Senators on a bipartisan basis supporting this reform.

This is not something that is new to the committee. We have been debating this issue for 8 years. I have asked for a vote every one of those 8 years and have only been given one twice. We had the majority of the Senate on both of those votes. So this bill has been filibustered for 8 years. This bill has been refused to be allowed to be part of the NDAA for a long time. This is not a new issue. These are not new facts. These are things that we have been wrestling with and failing. So I believe it is time this measure comes to the floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the extraordinary service of my friend Representative Jane Margaret Lakes Harman, who will be leaving her position as president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership.

Born in New York City, Representative Harman grew up in Los Angeles and received her bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Smith College and her law degree from Harvard Law School. Like many young people who believe in the unmatched power of public service, Jane moved to Washington, DC, where she served as a staffer to Senator John Tunney and with the Senate Judiciary Committee. She would go on to serve her country in the Department of Defense and as President Carter's Secretary of the Cabinet.

From 1993 until 2011, Representative Harman served the people of Southern California's 36th District. Throughout her tenure, Representative Harman fundamentally improved the national security of the United States through her work on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees. Not content with leading just from the halls of Congress, she sought to find the truth for herself. Her work in pursuit of the facts relevant to protecting our democracy and our allies took her to Guantanamo Bay, Syria, and North Korea. Her oversight and leadership on national security was especially critical throughout this time period, as the United States sought to understand and push back from threats both new and old, including foreign terrorism. While Representative Harman's contributions speak for themselves, her receipt of the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Seal Medal, the CIA Director's Award, and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal highlight an extraordinary career serving the American people.

At the Wilson Center, Representative Harman continued her diligent work keeping our policymakers and the public informed on the ongoing security challenges the United States and her allies face. As we prepare and steel ourselves for the next era of security challenges, knowledge produced under her leadership and the relentless efforts of her colleague and staff will continue to be an invaluable resource.

Like many extraordinary Americans, Representative Harman carried out this work while also caring for her family, including her four children, her four grandchildren, and her late husband Sidney, an enormous personality in his own right. After a lifetime of public service, from staffer to elected official to thought leader in the policy-making community, Representative Jane Harman has left an indelible mark that has deeply strengthened the safety of our Nation. I am forever grateful for her service, her friendship, and wish her all the best in her next adventures.

Madam President, I rise to add my name to S. Res. 120. This resolution would make it the sense of the Senate that we in this Chamber oppose the global BDS movement and other efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel.

I have long said that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel--the BDS movement--is too often used as a vehicle for anti-Semitism.

The resolution would affirm our commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East, with a future viable, democratic Palestinian State living side by side with the democratic State of Israel in peace, in security, and with mutual recognition.

It would make clear that particularly in this climate of increased anti-Semitism, we do not agree with efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel. I agree with these principles, and it is why I am supporting this resolution.

I would also like to say this: I have made it clear in the past, and my opinion is no different today, that I will not support any legislation that will weaken Americans' First Amendment rights. In this country, we have a fundamental constitutional right to express our opinions and speak out about what we believe in. We have a right to engage in civil disobedience. We have a right to protest. This resolution recognizes all of that. It recognizes the right of people to protest and express their opinions about whatever country or whatever policy they want, but the Senate is also entitled to our opinion, and I support making it our opinion in this body that we oppose the global BDS movement, that we want a two-state solution, and that we want to stand by our alliance with Israel.

I am proud to stand up for these ideals. I am proud to speak out about them. I encourage all New Yorkers and all Americans all over the country to keep speaking out what they believe in too.

I also want to make a broader and critically important point here; that is, today we cannot ignore the anti-Semitism that is on the rise all around us. It is more important now than ever that we stand together against all forms of anti-Semitism.

Just this past weekend, a hateful, anti-Semitic White supremacist walked into a synagogue in California on the Sabbath, during a celebration, and horrifically opened fire with a weapon of war on people who were praying--praying--on the last day of Passover. Six months before that, we mourned the tragedy at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, when another hateful, anti-Semitic White supremacist walked into a synagogue on the Sabbath and slaughtered people with another weapon of war.

New Yorkers in my home State have had to endure hateful graffiti with swastikas and even outright physical attacks. The FBI has reported a spike in hate crimes all over our country, so has the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL just released its annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents. These cases of harassment, vandalism, and assault aren't just happening in one place; they are happening in people's businesses, in their schools, in their cemeteries, in their synagogues, and in our public parks. It was their third highest year on record. They are not just happening in our country either.

In Europe, far-right political parties are winning elected office. We are seeing new attempts to deny the Holocaust. It is all unacceptable. Given the rise of anti-Semitism, it is particularly concerning to me that the U.N. is so focused on continuously and singularly vilifying Israel, in contrast to all other nations. That is why I have taken so many steps so often to call out the U.N.'s unfair actions, and it is why I will continue to call on the U.N. to abstain from its unfair treatment of Israel.

The United States is supposed to be a safe haven for Israel and a safe haven for the Jewish people. It is supposed to be a safe haven for people of all religions. You are supposed to be able to worship freely here and to honor the Sabbath here without coming under attack. We must never let that change. We must not allow bigotry and violence to become normal and routine. We must not look the other way when we hear slurs and witness harassment.

Anti-Semitism is real and dangerous, but it is not going to stop on its own. Only our words and our actions can do that. We need to show the world that we are more united than ever to fight against anti- Semitism and against all other forms of racism and bigotry. We need to send a powerful message of solidarity by standing with the Jewish community, praying with them, and helping assure them that in this dark moment, they are not alone.

Let me end with this. I take my faith very seriously. It grounds me. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to attend Bible studies with my colleagues in the Senate and that I can attend a weekly Prayer Breakfast. I believe we are here now, at this moment, for a reason. We are all called to end

hate; we are all called to speak out against the darkness; we are all called to reject anti-Semitism; and we are all called to defend the vulnerable. As a body, we must answer that call.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Washington. She is exactly right.

We are rising today to speak about a very disturbing annual milestone that we are once again marking today. Today is known as Equal Pay Day, and here is what it means.

The average woman has to work 15 months just to get paid what the average man earns in 1 year alone. The reason today is Equal Pay Day is that it is today in the new year when the average woman finally gets paid what the average man earned the year before. If you are a woman of color, on average, you have to work even longer just to get paid what the average man earns in 1 year.

It is outrageous that we still don't actually have equal pay for equal work in this country, and it is the year 2019. It is shameful that women all across this country are being underpaid for the hard work they are doing every day. It is disgraceful that the gender wage gap is as wide as it is. This is happening in a moment in our Nation's history when women, more than ever before, are working outside the home, when many women are the actual primary breadwinner or the sole breadwinner for their family.

This is an alarming, glaring reminder of how badly our economy is failing so many workers and their families all over the country. Above all else, it is a reminder to all of us that as a country, we are still struggling to value women. We are still struggling to protect women from wage discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, workplace harassment, and unfair minimum wage; that we are still struggling to ensure that women and their families have access to paid leave, affordable daycare. All of these things add to the gender wage gap and make it even worse.

If a woman isn't getting paid a fair wage, the way she actually deserves, the wage she earned by putting in the hours of hard work, then that hurts her, her family, her children. It hurts our entire U.S. economy. It weakens the middle class. It is bad for our country.

There is no excuse for any of this. It is something all of us should be thinking about what we can do to correct, using our power to correct, because the fact that we still don't have equal pay for equal work in this country is an embarrassment.

We need equal pay for equal work, and we need it now. In this Chamber, we have a responsibility to make sure our workplace policies and our laws are actually protecting women, protecting their families, and protecting our economy as a whole. One of the best ways we can actually solve this problem is by finally passing this law. It is common sense. It guarantees equal pay for equal work once and for all.

The good news is we already have a bill, and it is ready to go right now. It is even bipartisan. It is called the Paycheck Fairness Act. It has already passed the House, and the only thing stopping it right now is the Senate. This bill would ban retaliation against workers who discuss their wages. It would give the Department of Labor the tools needed to enforce equal pay around this country.

Although the Senator claims we already have laws, they are not working. So we need better enforcement. It would prohibit employers from relying on a salary history of prospective employees when they are deciding how much to pay them.

This bill would help end wage discrimination. It would actually make our families, our country, and our economy stronger. Don't you want that, Madam President?

So what are we waiting for? Congress needs to step up right now. We need equal pay for equal work.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.