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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login