After a week of intense debate surrounding next year’s Defense Authorization Bill, the Senate is no closer to attaching the Gillibrand amendments, also known the Military Justice Improvement Act. As mentioned in previous posts, Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is working to remove the decisions to move forward in sexual assault cases from the military’s chain of command. This measure goes farther than the provisions already stipulated in the bill and widely supported by Senator McCaskill (D-MO).
The Military Justice Improvement Act is a strong example of bi-partisanship in an especially polarized congress. Senator Gillibrand has the support of 53 senators, two of the most notable being Senators Cruz (R-TX) and Paul (R-KY). The biggest hurdle for Senator Gillibrand, at this point, is gaining the support of her colleagues across the aisle before the Senate returns from recess on December 9th to reach a filibuster-proof vote count. With the support of Senators Cruz and Paul, she stands a better chance at using them to help gain additional support from Senate Republicans. In a time of rising polarization and congressional inaction, the support from both sides of the aisle is huge step in the right direction. While some argue that the polarized congress stems from a polarized public—on this issue, that does not hold true. A recent poll showed that almost six in ten Americans support taking the decision to prosecute military sexual assault out of the chain of command, following with the Gillibrand amendment. Those in the Senate now should act as delegates, and vote on this amendment as their constituents demonstrate widespread support. That being said, Gillibrand is determined to have this measure of change enacted, and has said that she will call for a separate vote on the Military Justice Improvement Act if it does not move forward.
Another aspect of this amendment that has yet to be discussed is where the President falls in these discussions, and what the relationship between the Executive Branch and Congress is on this amendment. President Obama has been very outspoken on the issue of military sexual assault and how all measures need to be taken to prevent the horrific actions from continuing on as is. However, President Obama has not indicated whether he supports the more extensive actions proposed by Senator Gillibrand or those already included in the Authorization Bill, supported by Senator McCaskill. At a press conference this week, press Secretary Jay Carney said “It is something, as I said, the President is very concerned about, I don’t have any more insight on potential amendments at this time.” As this amendment is opposed by some of the Department of Defense’s leadership—it places the President in a tough position with the leaders at the Pentagon. While the President has not yet used his bully pulpit to bring the few democrats who are not in support of this measure in to party line yet, there still is the opportunity to do so when Congress resume from break. If this bill is added as an amendment and eventually is passed, there might be resistance from the Department of Defense. President Obama should then issue a signing statement to ensure for proper implementation of this protective measure. On the other hand, if this measure is not added as an amendment and President Obama is not satisfied with the limited nature of reform in combating sexual violence, he can issue executive orders to force more action against these horrific crimes.
By Sophie S.
Operation Stop Sexual Violence 
I do wonder why the President has not explicitly stated his support of the bill. He has significant influence and potential for positive agenda control, and it seems he has not taken advantage of it. This seems strange because the bill has gained bipartisan support, and Obama could do some credit-claiming if he supports the bill and helps to pass it. Do you think this has been framed as a matter of national security? If not, how on Earth has this not passed yet?
I think the main issue the President is facing right now is not with Congress, but as Sophie stated, the Department of Defense leaders who still see some issue with this. I think right now the President is confident enough in Congress to pass the bill without his outright support so that he can focus more of his energy on easing the concerns of the Department of Defense. Regardless of what happens, Obama will use his powers to push for strong and successful implementation.
– Maddie J
It seems like Obama has to weigh his responsibilities as Commander in Chief (which may or may not support the chain-of-command solution mechanism, however flawed it may be) with those of the relatively progressive President that he is. While that is a debate for a different course, I feel like the bully pulpit could be a viable strategy here; unlike immigration, which is a decisive and partisan issue, sexual violence is relatively one-sided, as you proved with the poll numbers. Despite having little political capital after Obamacare’s rollout, the President would be seen as making a powerful moral stand if he were to speak in support of Gillibrand’s amendment.
Because President Obama was so in favor of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t tell, it seems like he ought to be able to get the DoD on board with such a common sense reform. It also seems like a good opportunity to address the criticism that he is not involved enough in legislative matters- he could improve his progressive credentials and show voters and Congress that he’s not afraid to get his hands dirty.
Chris–
You make a strong point on the flawed Obamacare rollout and its effect on the President’s efforts for change. However, because this issue is seemingly one-sided in the public’s eye–it seems hard to believe that the President will not get involved.
However, I think that this is so different than the debate over the repeal of DADT for two reasons. One, the public support levels on repeal of DADT were so much higher and two, it had no effect on the command structure of the military. This Gillibrand proposal might be seen as vastly different from the repeal of DADT because she is calling for structural change in the command structure of the military’s operations–which they might (wrongly) argue would cause a destruction of their capabilities and operations.
–Sophie S
Although I hope the Gildebrand amendments pass, I would also like to see the President speak up more on this issue. I believe that the President could have more control over the issue and is only afraid to act because of push back from the Department of Defense. I think the best executive option for change would be to create executive orders to alter the function of the military like you stated in your article. President Obama has already used presidential memoranda to successfully support immigration reform this year, I’m very confused as to why he hasn’t done something similar for military sexual assault prevention.
–Arthur Townsend
Testing something, sorry!
Emily
From the beginning of his administration, President Obama has continuously taken flak for being anti-military,( a claim that seems puzzling given his actually policies). He’s still fighting back against that perception. So, I’m not surprised to see him proceed carefully if this bill is such a huge sticking point for senior Department of Defense officials. The President’s initial push on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal was met with a lot of push back from the same officials. Ultimately, he will probably support the amendment given his state policy preferences, but he’s probably avoiding that confrontation as much as possible. I’m not sure if that fact is concerning for Senator Gillibrand, because she’s afraid of him not coming through or if it’s comforting because she can count on a calvary of Democratic votes at the last minute.
I wonder if the recent weakening of the filibuster makes this bill more or less likely to pass? On the one hand, it does create an atmosphere of even more partisanship than there was before, but on the other it also effectively killed the fillibuster (Erza Klein had a great read on this). I wonder if anyone would filibuster this bill now if it came up for a vote?