Kirsten Gillibrand Struggling in Her Fight Over Military Sexual Assault

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
Add to Briefcase
Stacy Kaper
Jan. 12, 2014, 7:35 a.m.

Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand is run­ning out of op­tions in her bid to as­semble the 60 votes she needs to win her high-pro­file battle to change the way the mil­it­ary handles sexu­al as­sault.

The New York Demo­crat has 53 sup­port­ers for her pro­pos­al, but that falls sev­en short of the tally likely needed to over­come the ever-present threat of a fili­buster. And though Gil­librand in­sists she’s still build­ing sup­port, the roster of un­de­cided sen­at­ors is look­ing less and less friendly.

In late Novem­ber, Gil­librand’s lob­by­ing al­lies made a list of 25 who had not yet com­mit­ted to the sen­tor’s pro­pos­al but who — in the view of the ad­voc­ates — had not ex­pli­citly ruled out join­ing her ef­fort. The move to bring those 25 over, however, is founder­ing.

Of those 25 po­ten­tial votes, nine have joined Gil­librand’s op­pos­i­tion, and eight are in­dic­at­ing they are at least lean­ing against her.

Now, the list of un­de­cideds in­cludes only one Demo­crat — Montana’s Max Baucus — and sev­en Re­pub­lic­ans: Tom Coburn, Thad Co­chran, Or­rin Hatch, Mitch Mc­Con­nell, Jerry Mor­an, Marco Ru­bio, and Pat Toomey.

So why is Gil­librand’s bid stalling?

For one, sev­er­al sen­at­ors are opt­ing to sup­port a sep­ar­ate, less con­tro­ver­sial mil­it­ary sexu­al-as­sault meas­ure.

Mis­souri Demo­crat Claire Mc­Caskill is pro­pos­ing a pack­age of more mod­er­ate re­forms that would in­crease com­mand­er ac­count­ab­il­ity, al­low sur­viv­ors to chal­lenge un­fair dis­charge from the ser­vice, and stop sol­diers from us­ing good mil­it­ary char­ac­ter as a de­fense. The plan is non­con­tro­ver­sial, en­joys broad bi­par­tis­an sup­port, and is ex­pec­ted to be ad­op­ted eas­ily whenev­er it comes up for a vote.

That meas­ure, however, doesn’t in­clude one of the most highly sought-after re­forms by vic­tim ad­voc­ates: strip­ping the chain of com­mand of its power to de­cide wheth­er-sexu­al as­sault cases are pro­sec­uted. And that’s the key switch Gil­librand is push­ing for.

Mc­Caskill isn’t back­ing Gil­librand’s bill — she act­ively op­poses it — and the two Demo­crats’ re­la­tion­ship has grown tense over the mat­ter.

As well as Mc­Caskill’s al­tern­at­ive, sev­er­al sen­at­ors said they felt Con­gress had just made sig­ni­fic­ant strides ad­dress­ing the is­sue with re­forms that were in­cluded in the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act that the Sen­ate passed just be­fore it ad­journed for the year.

“I ac­tu­ally think that the res­ult we ended up with in the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill is prob­ably the cor­rect way to go,” said Sen. Ron John­son, R-Wis., who had been tar­geted as an un­de­cided sen­at­or, but con­firmed he plans to vote no on the Gil­librand bill.

Oth­ers did not real­ize the bill is pending on the cal­en­dar, or are du­bi­ous it will ac­tu­ally come up for a vote, which Sen­ate aides say would be Feb­ru­ary at the earli­est. With so much else, par­tic­u­larly fisc­al mat­ters, dom­in­at­ing the agenda, there is little driv­ing at­ten­tion on the Gil­librand bill, or the far less con­tro­ver­sial, al­tern­at­ive from Mc­Caskill and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., which would give Gil­librand op­pon­ents something to be “for.”

“We’ll see if they bring it up,” said Sen. John Bar­rasso, R-Wyo., an­oth­er sen­at­or re­cently con­sidered un­de­cided, who now says he is a no. “You want to leave the chain of com­mand in charge. You need to do everything you can to lessen the amount of sexu­al as­sault. I think the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act has done a sig­ni­fic­ant amount; it could go fur­ther. I think that the Ayotte-Mc­Caskill bill ad­dresses that.”

Mc­Caskill has ar­gued that Gil­librand’s meas­ure would hurt rather than help the prob­lem. She is backed by re­tir­ing Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in, D-Mich., and his heir ap­par­ent, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Sen. Rob Port­man, R-Ohio., is tech­nic­ally un­declared but said he’s plan­ning to sup­port Mc­Caskill and is prob­ably a “no” on Gilllibrand, be­cause of con­cerns he has heard from mil­it­ary lead­ers.

Sen. Shel­don White­house, D-R.I., an­oth­er sen­at­or who was re­cently con­sidered un­de­cided, said he is with Mc­Caskill and Reed, the seni­or sen­at­or from his state.

“I’ve been with Claire Mc­Caskill,” White­house said. When asked why he is against the Gil­librand bill, he said, “I’m sup­port­ing Jack Reed.”

Oth­er mem­bers — in­clud­ing a couple who re­main in the un­de­cided camp — aid they are un­com­fort­able with the fact that the Gil­librand bill would change the pro­tocol of the mil­it­ary-justice sys­tem bey­ond sexu­al crimes.

It would cov­er some oth­er crimes, con­sidered a felony in the ci­vil­ian justice sys­tem, that are pun­ish­able by a year or more in con­fine­ment — in­clud­ing rob­bery, for­gery, ex­tor­tion and even murder.

“I still haven’t taken a po­s­i­tion on it,” said Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla. “I still have been talk­ing to a lot of the mil­it­ary lead­ers in­clud­ing many in my own state to get a bet­ter in­dic­a­tion of how it would work”¦. It is a ma­jor change in the way we pro­sec­ute crimes in the mil­it­ary. I just want to make sure it doesn’t un­der­mine the chain of com­mand.”

The is­sue of en­com­passing a broad­er class of crimes than just sexu­al as­sault has so far been a deal break­er for some po­ten­tial sup­port­ers, but Sen­ate aides say that Gil­librand is not look­ing to fur­ther lim­it the scope of her bill as she had flir­ted with last year.

“I thought it was too broad for pulling out non-sexu­al-as­sault cases.”¦ There hadn’t been a prob­lem in that area,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who said he is a “no” for now. “What we ought to do now is im­ple­ment those [re­forms in­cluded in the NDAA] and see how they work and if we haven’t done enough and we need to do more we can re­vis­it it.”

The pro­ced­ure for the vote has not been worked out yet. It is tech­nic­ally pos­sible that 60 votes would be re­quired to take up Gil­librand’s bill, but that it could then pass with a simple ma­jor­ity. But Gil­librand has said she ex­pects ap­prov­al will re­quire 60 votes.

The last time the Gil­librand meas­ure was slated to come up for a vote, the sen­at­or en­joyed a sud­den surge of mo­mentum. She won six ad­di­tion­al sup­port­ers, in­clud­ing key mem­bers like Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id and Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip Dick Durbin. They helped push her over the crit­ic­al simple ma­jor­ity threshold to her cur­rent tally, in the lead up to an ex­pec­ted vote on her meas­ure in the form of an amend­ment to the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill late last year.

Ad­voc­ates say they will need the pres­sure of law­makers star­ing down a vote again to fo­cus their at­ten­tion and re­start mo­mentum.

“Keep­ing mo­mentum, that is the chal­lenge,” said Greg Jac­ob, the Ser­vice Wo­men’s Ac­tion Net­work policy dir­ect­or and a former Mar­ine.

Nancy Par­rish, the pres­id­ent of Pro­tect Our De­fend­ers, said they will keep lob­by­ing un­de­cided and op­posed sen­at­ors to get 60 votes even if it takes mul­tiple years.

“We’re not go­ing away,” she said.

Gil­librand is con­tinu­ing to work her col­leagues. “The sur­viv­ors’ day on the Sen­ate floor is com­ing and we will work as hard as we can un­til the gavel comes down to give them the justice sys­tem they de­serve,” she said.

“Nowhere in Amer­ica does a boss get to de­cide wheth­er or not a sexu­al as­sault oc­curred ex­cept the mil­it­ary. That needs to change.”


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.