A strong and growing bipartisan effort by leaders in both parties has come together to strengthen our military because for more than two decades we have been promised “zero tolerance” for sexual assault – only to be left with zero accountability.

Every day Congress puts off our reform is another day the deck remains stacked against victims of sexual assault in the military. Another day, when statistically, on average, more than 70 incidents of unwanted sexual conduct occur, and nearly nine out 10 go unreported.

We know these crimes go unreported in part because trust in the chaotic military justice system has been irrevocably broken due to the inherent bias and conflicts of interest posed by a closed system where the boss holds all the cards.

[See a collection of political cartoons on women in combat.]

You don’t have to just listen to the brave survivors who have told us this over and over again. Listen to the military brass. As Commandant of the Marine Corps. General Amos admitted last year, “Why wouldn’t female victims come forward. Because they don’t trust us. They don’t trust the command. They don’t trust the leadership.”

So when some say we should wait another year, we say our servicemembers deserve to have independent trained prosecutors making decisions based solely on evidence today. Not after another year of a system that is broken under any metric. They deserve a vote that a majority of the Senate supports. And they deserve it now.

Some say the annual defense authorization bill we passed at the end of last year with new reforms is enough. But why should our brave men and women in uniform continue to have less access to justice than every other American whose freedoms they risk their lives to protect?

[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]

Some say this reform will negatively impact our military’s good order and discipline and let commanders off the hook. False. As Brig. Gen. (ret.) Pat Foote, the first female inspector general in the U.S. Army said: “I cannot see how a commander’s authority would be undermined and that he/she would somehow not be able to set the proper command climate to support the unit’s mission if cases proceed to trial based on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. When I was a commander in my first command assignment, I did not have general court martial convening authority. The regional commander, a one-star admiral, held that authority. My having to refer the most serious cases to him did not in any way lessen my charge and ability to lead my sailors and officers effectively … and certainly did not absolve me of any accountability for good order and discipline and mission accomplishment.”