National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to address one of the most difficult issues we have faced in this bill, an issue on which the Armed Services Committee spent a great deal of time, in fact more time than on any other issue this year. It is the issue of sexual assault in the military.

At our very first hearing where we were discussing this with a group of people, I made the observation that the only sure, long-term way to confront and defeat this tragic problem is through a change in the culture. It has to become unacceptable in the culture of our armed services that sexual assault is in any way tolerated or ignored. We have to solve this. It is a problem that has been festering for years. I understand the impatience of those who say we have been waiting for too long, we have to take strong steps. I think it is very important to realize that in the bill that is already before us are strong steps, the most comprehensive package of sexual assault provisions that has ever been in any Defense bill, to my knowledge, in the history of this institution. It has been taken seriously. It has been dealt with in a comprehensive way, some of the strongest changes ever.

I think one of the most important I want to highlight is the criminalization of retaliation. A great deal of the discussion has been about reporting and the reluctance of victims to report, in part because of retaliation. One of the provisions in this bill is to make it a crime to retaliate against a victim for reporting one of these horrendous crimes. The debate today is about one particular provision, one particular provision dealing with sexual assault that is not in the bill, and the question boils down to who makes the decision to refer a sexual assault case to prosecution.

I have heard the debate. I should have said at the outset, I so admire Senator Gillibrand for her intellect, for her passion, for her dedication, for her perseverance on this issue. Everybody involved in this debate has exactly the same goal, which is to get rid of this problem, to diminish it, to reduce it to zero, to not tolerate it. That is the goal of everyone involved. The question is whether removing the decision to refer to court-martial from the commander will further that goal or in fact will undermine it.

After listening to the arguments, discussing it at length with Senator Gillibrand and others, I have concluded that to take this decision out of the chain of command would in fact do harm to the cause of victims' rights.

The reason is simple. I want the commander to be fully responsible for this problem. I don't want a commander saying: It is not my problem anymore; the Congress of the United States has said I don't have to worry about this; I will check that box.

I believe, going back to my original point, that the way you change the culture is in a multifaceted approach, but certainly one of the ways you do it is through the decisions that come from the commander. That is what sets the tone in the unit. Leadership always infects an entire unit in good or bad ways, and I believe it would be a mistake on the side of the victims if we change the system and allow the commanders to say this is not my problem, this is not my responsibility.

As Senator Reed mentioned on the floor earlier today, the Senator from Rhode Island, one of the most important changes is a change the Pentagon has itself made which is to hold commanders responsible for the sexual assault record in their unit as part of their evaluation for promotion. That is part of the way you change the culture.

This is a very difficult decision, but I think it is important to realize that the decision on this amendment is not: Are you in favor of victims' rights or are you in favor of the brass? I reject that dichotomy because already within the bill are these very strong provisions which are directed at this serious problem. What we are talking about is a fairly narrow discussion of who makes that decision. As a former practicing attorney who has had experience in criminal cases, prosecutors I think may be more conservative and less likely, in some cases, to bring cases to trial than the commanding officer who wants to ensure that justice is done for that victim.

What we want is no victims. We want this problem to end. We want this era to change because the culture changes within the military, and that which was acceptable at one time is no longer acceptable.

The best example I can cite for that in my life is drunken driving--OUI. When I was a young man, there was an epidemic of drunken driving in this country, and it was considered as kind of a joke. It was considered as a sort of a rite of passage. Suddenly, through law changes and societal changes over a generation, it is no longer acceptable or funny, and it is no longer tolerated, and as a result we have seen a decline because the culture has changed. That is what has to happen in the military, and I think it begins with the commanding officer.

In my opinion, to take this responsibility away from the commanding officer is not siding with the brass, it is siding with the victims, because I want those commanding officers fully engaged in this decision. I want them fully responsible for their decision. I want them to be what, in fact, they are, leaders--leaders who can make change, and leaders who can make change in this critical area. If it doesn't work, as my father used to say, Congress is always in session. We can come back and correct it.

I believe we are at a moment where the military is being given a last chance to deal with this within the chain of command. I think we have given them the tools to do so in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support Senator McCaskill's amendment and to move forward with this bill which we can be very proud of in terms of its recognition of this horrendous issue, but also in terms of the solutions and tools it provides to our military to solve this problem once and for all.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source