Gillibrand Lowers Sights on Military Sexual-Assault Campaign

Running out of routes to 60 votes, the New York Democrat is looking to the long game.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) speaks while U.S. military leaders testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on pending legislation regarding sexual assaults in the military June 4, 2013.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Stacy Kaper
Jan. 15, 2014, 3:22 p.m.

Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand has long pro­jec­ted op­tim­ism in her long-shot cru­sade to over­haul the mil­it­ary’s sys­tem for ad­dress­ing sexu­al as­sault. But op­tim­ism can’t change a whip count, and now the New York Demo­crat is con­ced­ing that the ini­tial vote on her bill is un­likely to be suc­cess­ful.

In­stead, Gil­librand is look­ing longer-term, hop­ing to build off her first try to gath­er sup­port for a fu­ture at­tempt.

“I think we just hold the vote, get as close to 60 as we can, maybe reach 60, and then go from there,” Gil­librand said in an ex­clus­ive in­ter­view Wed­nes­day. “It’s a longer de­bate and it may take longer than this next vote. But I think the fact that we’ve had the time to really think through what will this re­form ac­tu­ally look like is ex­tremely mean­ing­ful.”

Gil­librand said she still ex­pects her bill — which would re­move from the chain of com­mand the de­cision of wheth­er to pro­sec­ute sexu­al as­saults and oth­er ser­i­ous crimes — will hit the floor in the first half of Feb­ru­ary.

But pro­spects of vic­tory are look­ing in­creas­ingly slim. Gil­librand has 53 sup­port­ers lined up, and Na­tion­al Journ­al re­por­ted Monday that the roster of per­suad­able law­makers is shrink­ing; only eight of 25 tar­gets are still con­sidered un­de­cided and all but one are Re­pub­lic­ans.

Gil­librand’s bid was al­ways a long shot, and she noted that even if she man­aged to work it through the Sen­ate, she would still face stiff op­pos­i­tion in the House.

Her strategy would be to try to build an over­whelm­ing num­ber of co­spon­sors to com­pel House Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship to act — a tall or­der.

“If we do reach 60, then we have to start talk­ing to the House and mak­ing sure we can find 218 sig­na­tures of people who sup­port this re­form, and then we would al­low our bill to go over to the House,” she said. “But we want to show that sup­port as a way to en­cour­age Speak­er [John] Boehner to al­low for a vote on the House side.”

First, though, Gil­librand needs to nav­ig­ate the Sen­ate pro­cess, which she ad­mits will not be easy.

Gil­librand is ex­pect­ing a 60-vote threshold. Her best-case scen­ario would be that she can man­age to find a way to de­liv­er 60 votes for clo­ture to pro­ceed to the bill, and then pass the bill by a simple ma­jor­ity.

Al­though she calls that ap­proach “stand­ard,” it would re­quire agree­ments and time con­sid­er­a­tions that she ac­know­ledges she might be able to se­cure.

“That may re­quire con­sent giv­en all the time that would be al­lot­ted to do it in the full pro­cess. So if we need 60 votes still, we will work with 60 votes. Our goal is to really earn 60 votes for this meas­ure be­cause I think it is the kind of re­form that is really ne­ces­sary. It’s a long-term struc­tur­al re­form about how we cre­ate trans­par­ency and ac­count­ab­il­ity with­in the mil­it­ary for all ser­i­ous crimes.”

In the mean­time, Gil­librand is work­ing to bring in sym­path­et­ic gen­er­als to meet with un­com­mit­ted law­makers to try to help per­suade them to vote yes ahead of the vote. She is also em­ploy­ing an ad­di­tion­al ar­gu­ment that is de­signed to knock down op­pon­ents’ ar­gu­ments that com­mand­ers need to main­tain power to de­cide pro­sec­u­tions in or­der to man­age their troops.

“There was al­most a 20-year peri­od where com­mand­ers didn’t have this au­thor­ity to de­cide which cases go to tri­al for non­mil­it­ary crimes, from about 1969 to 1987 when the Su­preme Court ruled it was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al,” she said. “So dur­ing that time peri­od com­mand­ers didn’t have this au­thor­ity, but they still were able to man­age their troops’ good or­der and dis­cip­line, do their jobs of com­mand­ing and train­ing to fine ef­fect.”

Gil­librand also points to re­forms in the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act, which was just signed in­to law last month, that she helped push for­ward, but in­sists more changes are ne­ces­sary.

“They are all good first steps for­ward,” she said. “Just un­for­tu­nately they don’t ad­dress the one thing that vic­tims have asked for which is to have the de­cision point taken out of the chain of com­mand be­cause too many people didn’t re­port the crimes be­cause they feared the com­mand­ers would do noth­ing or they feared re­tali­ation.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×