National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, there is not a single Senator here who does not acknowledge the seriousness of sexual assault in the military and that we must do something to prevent and prosecute these crimes. Yes, there are differences of opinion as to what we need to do, but make no mistake, we share the common goal of preventing and prosecuting these crimes.

I thank two strong women on the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand, for their leadership in pushing for solutions that will make a difference. I also thank Chairman Levin for his commitment and leadership in bringing forth a bill that includes a number of important improvements to the current system. We all support these changes. However, I believe there is a fundamental structural problem with how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the military. We need to make the changes proposed by the Gillibrand amendment.

I am a cosponsor of the Gillibrand amendment. I spoke on the floor last week and explained why I think we need to remove disposition authority from the chain of command. I don't want to repeat everything I said last week, so let me make a few points.

First, for two decades or longer the Department of Defense has had a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and sexual harassment. Yet the problem persists. Servicemembers continue to be assaulted and raped, and in too many cases the perpetrators continue to go unpunished. Year after year, Secretary after Secretary and commander after commander has told us about all the efforts to correct this problem, but those efforts have not worked. There are probably many reasons why these incremental changes have not worked, but every year that these changes do not work, many more of our brave men and women in the military endure the trauma of sexual assault. It is time to make a major change to the military justice system.

Second, too often these attacks are not reported, which allows the attacker to prey on more victims. The survivors tell us the biggest reason they do not report these crimes is because they do not believe their chain of command will ensure that justice is done. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, has acknowledged that many victims do not come forward because ``they do not trust the command.''

The concerns of survivors in coming forward makes sense because there are inherent biases and conflicts of interest in the chain of command. These concerns are echoed in a letter from GEN Claudia Kennedy that was signed by more than two dozen former officers from all branches of the military.

The letter states:

We know that, in too many cases, servicemembers have not reported incidents of sexual assault because they lack confidence in the current system. The inherent conflicts that exist in the military justice system have led servicemembers to believe that their allegations of sexual assault will not receive a fair and impartial hearing and that perpetrators will not be held accountable.

We should give weight to these concerns and act today to remove the chain of command from prosecutorial decisions in sexual assault cases and instead put these decisions in the hands of an impartial, experienced military lawyer.

Third, removing prosecutorial decisions from the chain of command will not harm good order and discipline. I have heard this concern from many military leaders, as well as from others who oppose this amendment. They say eliminating a commander's ability to decide whether a case should go to trial would undermine the commander's ability to maintain good order and discipline within the unit, and yet--and yet--we have heard from many others who have command experience who support the Gillibrand amendment.

Good order and discipline should not depend upon a commander's ability to decide whether to prosecute a sexual crime. A commander's authority and leadership must certainly be based on more than that.

Furthermore, the Gillibrand amendment preserves a commander's disposition authority over crimes that are uniquely military--crimes such as desertion, AWOL, contempt, and noncompliance with procedural rules. This ensures that commanders will have the authority they need to maintain good order.

In closing, it is undeniable that the current system does not work. We know it does not work because, according to the Department of Defense, in 2012 there were an estimated 26,000 cases--26,000 cases--of unwanted sexual contact.

We know that not all survivors report these crimes because, in the words of General Amos, ``They do not trust the command.'' We know we can eliminate bias and conflicts of interest by entrusting prosecutorial decisions to an impartial, experienced military lawyer. We know that removing disposition authority from the chain of command will not undermine good order and discipline.

We know what needs to be done. We ought to do it and do it today. We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. We owe it to the families and loved ones of those who serve because the trauma of sexual assault often extends beyond the trauma experienced by the survivor. I urge my colleagues to support the Gillibrand amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source