The Senate on Thursday blocked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) controversial proposal to take sexual assault cases outside the military’s chain of command from moving forward. 
 
 Gillibrand’s bill received support from more than half the Senate, but the 55-45 vote fell short of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 The heated fight pitted Gillibrand against fellow Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), as well as Pentagon leaders. 
 
 Thursday’s vote deals a blow to Gillibrand’s months-long push to make one of the most sweeping changes to the military’s judicial system in decades. 
 
 Her measure would have taken the decision to prosecute sexual assault and other major criminal cases away from commanders, giving it to military lawyers. 
 
 Gillibrand and her supporters argued that the proposal is necessary because victims aren’t reporting sexual assault crimes for fear of reprisal, while opponents and Pentagon brass said that commanders needed to maintain accountability to curb the problem of sexual assault within the military’s ranks. 
 
 Gillibrand’s legislation was divisive, splitting senators from both parties in unconventional ways. 
 
 Gillibrand won the backing of over half the Senate by gaining support from more than three quarters of Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), as well as conservatives like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined with Kentucky's junior senator to vote for Gillibrand's bill. McConnell had not said beforehand how he would vote. 
 
 In all, 44 Democrats backed her proposal along with 11 Republicans. 
 
 After Thursday's vote, Gillibrand said the Senate had failed victims of sexual assault and vowed to fight on with her legislation. 
 
 “For a number of people an incremental step was more meaningful to them and they wanted to see what happens," Gillibrand said. "I think there will be many more senators who will side with us [next time]." 
 
 McCaskill led the charge against Gillibrand’s proposal, arguing the legislation would actually harm the prosecution of sexual assault perpetrators. 
 
 Gillibrand and McCaskill have battled for almost a year on the chain of command issue, holding dueling press conferences, releasing fact checks and counter-fact checks and mounting private lobbying campaigns with their colleagues. 
 
 While she ultimately prevailed, the fight was difficult for McCaskill, who saw every Senate Democratic woman line up against her. 
 
 McCaskill said after the vote that Gillibrand's proposal was the only policy where she and Gillibrand were divided on military sexual assault. 
 
 “We had one honestly held policy difference and that was voted on today," McCaskill said. "I’m confident the choice the Senate made today is the right one for victims of sexual assault.” 
 
 McCaskill has complained that the chain of command fight distracted from the significant reforms that were signed into law in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which she says will have a major impact on curbing sexual assault in the military. 
 
 “What I’m most frustrated about is not whether we voted on this or not, but the fact that a long list of historic reforms have been totally overlooked, because there is one policy difference in this one discrete area,” McCaskill told The Hill on Wednesday. 
 
 The NDAA stripped commanders’ ability to overturn guilty verdicts, required discharge for those convicted of sexual assault and expanded a program that gives victims legal representation in court proceedings. 
 
 Congress passed the changes in response to widespread outrage over several high-profile sexual assault incidents last year, and a Pentagon report estimating there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact in 2012, an increase of one-third. 
 
 New revelations surfaced hours before Thursday’s vote, as Stars and Stripes reported that the top Army prosecutor for sexual assault cases had been suspended over allegations he had groped and tried to kiss a subordinate. 
 
 McCaskill and the Pentagon have argued that the changes made will improve prosecution of sexual assault cases and increase reporting of the crimes. 
 
 Later Thursday, the Senate unanimously voted to end debate on McCaskill's own bill 100-0, but final passage isn't expected until 5:30 p.m. Monday. 
 
 After NDAA passed in 2013, President Obama said that he was giving the military one year to make progress on sexual assault in the ranks or he would “consider additional reforms.” 
 
 Gillibrand says that the measures in last year’s Defense bill are a step forward, but they don’t go nearly far enough. 
 
 Before Thursday’s vote, she said on the Senate floor that victims don’t report sexual assaults because they don't trust their commanders. 
 
 “It's like your brother committing the sexual assault and having your father decide whether to prosecute," Gillibrand said. “The victims and the survivors of sexual assault have been walking the halls of Congress asking that we do something to protect them.” 
 
 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined Gillibrand in saying it’s long past time for Congress to act. 
 
 “We’re passed the point of tinkering. … The current structure of the military justice system is having a deterrent effect on reporting,” Grassley said. “Sexual assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one.” 
 
 McCaskill countered that Gillibrand’s measure would fail to hold commanders accountable to fix the problem and wouldn't increase reporting. 
 
 “The policy changes that are being advocated will not work for victims,” McCaskill said. “When these changes have been enacted other places, reporting has not been increased.” 
 
 Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, echoed McCaskill’s argument that Gillibrand’s bill would prohibit commanders from being "at the heart of the issue." 
 
 “The strongest, most effective approach we can take to address sexual assault is to hold commanders accountable,” Levin said. “We must maintain the important authority to prosecute sexual assaults that our commanders now have.” 
 
 Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) had previously stated their support for Gillibrand's position, but they voted against the bill. 
 
 This story was updated at 3:34 p.m. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Thursday blocked a bill that would have stripped senior military commanders of their authority to prosecute or prevent charges for alleged rapes and other serious offenses, capping an emotional, nearly yearlong fight over how to curb sexual assault in the ranks. 
 
 In this Jan. 21, 2014, photo, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel , is interviewed by The Associated Press about her proposal to let military... (Associated Press) 
 
 The vote was 55-45, short of the 60 necessary to move ahead on the legislation sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Defeated but unbowed, the senator received hugs from Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., after the vote. 
 
 The Pentagon's leadership vigorously opposed the measure, arguing that officers should have more responsibility, not less, for the conduct of the men and women they lead. 
 
 Proponents of the bill insisted that far-reaching changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice are necessary to curb a scourge of rapes and sexual assaults. Under Gillibrand's proposal, the decision to take serious crimes to courts-martial would be given to military trial lawyers who have prosecutorial experience and would operate out of a newly established office independent of the chain of command. 
 
 Gillibrand's effort bitterly divided the Senate in a battle that smashed conventional lines on gender and political party. 
 
 Conservative Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky backed her effort, while the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, opposed the measure. 
 
 Although the vote sent the bill back to the Senate calendar, it was unlikely to be the final word. Gillibrand was expected to pursue the issue this spring when the Armed Services Committee begins work on a sweeping defense policy bill for the 2015 fiscal year. 
 
 "The people who don't trust the chain of the command are the victims," Gillibrand told her colleagues during the Senate debate. 
 
 One by one, proponents and opponents of her bill stood on the Senate floor and passionately argued based on personal experiences, growing frustration with what they dismissed as fixes around the edges and horrific stories from the ranks. 
 
 "The current system is failing the men and women in uniform," said one of the Senate's newest members, John Walsh, D-Mont., who spent 33 years in the Montana National Guard and is the first Iraq War veteran in the body. "We have moved too slowly." 
 
 Countering that argument was Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a West Point graduate who served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an infantry platoon leader and company commander. 
 
 Reed said stripping commanders of the authority to discipline the troops would be "detrimental to the effectiveness of the force and common goal to reduce sexual assault." 
 
 The issue bitterly divided the Senate's 20 female members. 
 
 "How many more victims are required to suffer before we act?" asked Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a backer of Gillibrand's effort. "How many more lives must be ruined before we act?" 
 
 Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a vehement opponent of the bill and a former prosecutor, said more cases are going to trial over the objections of prosecutors as commanders are deciding to press ahead with charges. 
 
 "We can't let the commanders walk away," McCaskill said. 
 
 The military has struggled increasingly in recent years with the sexual assault issue. The Pentagon estimated that 26,000 members of the military may have been sexually assaulted in 2012, the most recent numbers available, though thousands were afraid to come forward for fear of inaction or retribution. 
 
 After blocking Gillibrand's bill, the Senate moved toward overwhelmingly passage of a measure sponsored by McCaskill and two Republican senators — Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Deb Fischer of Nebraska. That bill would eliminate the "good solider defense" in cases unless it is directly connected to the crime. And it would allow sexual assault victims to challenge their discharges or separation from service. 
 
 The bill also calls for a civilian service secretary review if a prosecutor and commander disagree over whether to litigate a case. 
 
 The Senate voted 100-0 to move ahead on the bill. A vote on passage is scheduled for Monday. 
 
 Three months ago, Congress cleared and President Barack Obama signed a defense policy bill that included several changes to military law, including stripping commanders of their ability to overturn jury convictions and criminalizing retaliation against victims who come forward about sexual assaults. 
 
 Last June, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, especially Gillibrand and McCaskill, grilled the Joint Chiefs of Staff about whether the military's mostly male leadership understands differences between relatively minor sexual offenses and serious crimes that deserve swift and decisive justice. 
 
 "Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force. Not every single commander believes what a sexual assault is. Not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape because they merge all of these crimes together," Gillibrand said. 
 
 The Pentagon came under pressure last month to disclose more information about how sexual assault cases are adjudicated following an Associated Press investigation that found a pattern of inconsistent judgments and light penalties for sexual assaults at U.S. bases in Japan. 
 
 Gillibrand, who chairs the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee, called on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in a Feb. 10 letter to turn over case information from four major U.S. bases: Fort Hood in Texas, Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in California and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Such records would shed more light on how military commanders make decisions about courts-martial and punishments in sexual assault cases and whether the inconsistent judgments seen in Japan are more widespread. 
 
 The AP's investigation, which was based on hundreds of internal military documents, found that what appeared to be strong cases were often reduced to lesser charges. Suspects were unlikely to serve time even when military authorities agreed a crime had been committed. In two rape cases, commanders overruled recommendations to court-martial the accused and dropped the charges instead. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Associated Press writers Richard Lardner and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report. ||||| Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand came up short Thursday in her yearlong campaign to overhaul military sexual-assault policies, falling five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. 
 
 The New York Democrat’s bill, which would have removed the chain of command from prosecuting sexual assaults and other major military crimes, was derailed in the Senate on a 55-45 vote, closing out one chapter in a debate that divided the Senate but not along typical partisan lines. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 Ten Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2016 presidential hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, backed Gillibrand’s controversial chain-of-command bill. But that wasn’t enough to overcome 10 Democratic votes against her, including prominent defense hawks like Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also opposed the bill. 
 
 (POLITICO's Chain of Command series) 
 
 Gillibrand’s campaign went down to the final hours and minutes before the vote, and the outcome remained uncertain to the end as about a half-dozen Republicans and one Democrat — Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia — refused to say publicly where they’d fall. 
 
 Warner ultimately sided against Gillibrand, one of several surprises during the tense roll call. Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who was lobbied by Gillibrand right up to the minute before he cast his vote, had previously indicated support for the New York Democrat. Both went against her on the procedural vote. 
 
 Kirk, a retired Navy Reserve officer, told reporters after the vote that he’d changed his mind after hearing arguments from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) that Gillibrand’s bill could force much broader changes to the World War II-era military justice system. He also said he feared having outside lawyers take over prosecuting military cases and disrupting the unique culture of the armed services. 
 
 “I wanted to make sure the captain of a ship is really the captain of the whole ship,” Kirk said. 
 
 The Gillibrand vote also exposed deep rifts inside the GOP on national security and women’s issues. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Full defense policy coverage) 
 
 McConnell, who if he survives a GOP primary will face Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in November, bucked the Pentagon to join the libertarian-minded Paul in support of the chain-of-command change. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), who was facing a primary challenge against Liz Cheney until she dropped out in January, also voted with Gillibrand. 
 
 Then there’s the 2016 factor. Gillibrand is widely seen as a Democratic presidential contender if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get into the race. And on the Republican side, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an Air Force lawyer and defense hawk, didn’t hesitate to chide two potential primary front-runners — Paul and Cruz — for siding against the Pentagon. 
 
 “People wanting to run for president on our side, I will remind you of this vote,” Graham told reporters. “If you want to be commander in chief, you told me a lot about who you are as a commander-in-chief candidate. You were willing to fire every commander in the military for reasons I don’t quite understand, so we’ll have a good discussion as to whether or not you understand how the military actually works.” 
 
 Cruz insisted in an interview that his presidential ambitions didn’t factor into his position. 
 
 “This issue shouldn’t be political,” he said. “It’s about doing the right thing. It’s about standing with the men and women in the military. It’s about standing against sexual assault.” 
 
 Another 2016 contender, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), waited until the vote to take a public stance. “Just want to make sure I do the right thing,” he told reporters beforehand. The senator noted he’d held more than 20 meetings with military brass, victims and senators on both sides of the issue. 
 
 For her part, Gillibrand complained after the vote about several of her colleagues. “Too many of the members of the Senate have turned their back on these victims and survivors,” she said. And she also said she was disappointed with President Barack Obama, who issued a statement in December, saying he’d give the Pentagon until the end of 2014 to show progress on sexual assaults before deciding whether to push for stronger reforms like those in her bill. 
 
 (Sign up for POLITICO’s Morning Defense tip sheet) 
 
 If Obama had weighed in, Gillibrand said he could have helped tip the scales in favor of her proposal. 
 
 “I made my greatest case,” she said. “I advocated for this position, this reform. The president’s been very clear he wants to end sexual assault in the military. He wants it to be further studied and he wants to see progress on whether it’s been accomplished in the next year.” 
 
 Cruz was more pointed in his criticism of Obama. 
 
 “I will note there’s been a complete absence of leadership on this issue from President Obama,” Cruz told POLITICO. “President Obama doesn’t need legislation to make this happen. As commander in chief, he’d have the ability to implement serious reforms.” 
 
 No matter the outcome of Gillibrand’s bill, the debate generated significant attention to the Pentagon’s policies at a time when the issue also surfaced in several high-profile criminal trials, and in the Oscar-nominated documentary “The Invisible War” and as a major plot line in the second season of the Netflix drama “House of Cards.” 
 
 (Earlier on POLITICO: Gillibrand lauds 'House of Cards' military sexual assault plot) 
 
 “Taking the long view, there’s a real victory here because we have improved the system whatever the outcome; we’ve raised public awareness,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a leading Gillibrand supporter, said in an interview. “The military’s system of justice for sexual assault will never be the same. There have been historic changes if only because commanders will never again regard sexual assault in the same way. They’ll pay attention. They’ll respect survivors and they’ll pursue perpetrators in a way they haven’t before. That’s a victory.” 
 
 Also helpful: Gillibrand’s rivalry with McCaskill, a fellow female Democrat and former Kansas City-area prosecutor who was kept busy lobbying undecided senators as the vote finally came to a head. 
 
 McCaskill’s argument was twofold. She urged undecided senators to oppose Gillibrand and give the Pentagon more time to implement dozens of new sexual assault requirements from the most recent defense authorization law, including making it a crime to retaliate against a victim who reports an incident and prohibiting commanders from overturning jury convictions. 
 
 And she insisted Gillibrand’s approach would do just the opposite of what its sponsor promised, leading to fewer successful prosecutions while disrupting how the military deals with its ranks. 
 
 “In addition to it not increasing reporting, in addition to it not protecting from retaliation, in addition to removing commanders from their accountability, we also have some real practical implications,” McCaskill argued Thursday during the final floor debate. 
 
 McCaskill also tried to undercut Gillibrand through an alternative bill that would eliminate the “good soldier” legal defense from military evidence rules unless a defendant’s military character is directly tied to the alleged crime. 
 
 The bill gave senators a chance to back something substantive on sexual assault, without going as far as Gillibrand wanted. 
 
 Case in point: Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who told POLITICO on Thursday, “I’m going to do whatever I can to get to the McCaskill vote and support that.” 
 
 Passage of McCaskill’s alternative was never in question. Gillibrand even came out in support of it when it was first introduced. 
 
 And sure enough, the procedural vote to advance McCaskill’s bill Thursday was 100-0, though a vote on final passage was delayed until Monday as senators bolted the Capitol for a three-day weekend. ||||| Updated 5:44 p.m. 
 
 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-N.Y.) year-long fight to dramatically overhaul how the Pentagon handles cases of sexual assault and rape fell short Thursday afternoon when she failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance her proposal to a final vote. 
 
 Just 54 senators voted with her to advance a proposal that would take away from military commanders the power to refer serious crimes to courts-martial -- a proposal strongly opposed by Pentagon brass and several senior senators. 
 
 After the vote, Gillibrand said that reforms already adopted by Congress haven't gone far enough: "We know that the deck is stacked against victim of sexual assault in the military today – and today, sadly, we saw the same in the halls of Congress." 
 
 Even though she lost, Gillibrand is a big winner today. Here's why: 
 
 She bolsters her liberal credentials: Gillibrand was a moderate Upstate New York Democrat with a gold-plated score from the National Rifle Association when she was plucked from national political obscurity in 2009 to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Senate. Facing a barrage of criticism from Democrats who considered her unworthy of the seat, she quickly sought ways to win over liberals by becoming a proponent of immigration reform. She was an early proponent of repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and she reversed her position on gun control. Five years later, she's lost a big battle against the Pentagon bureaucracy -- which, let's face it, isn't held in great standing with many liberals. Her political makeover has placed her on the short list of Democrats who could run for president in the coming years. 
 
 She's boosted her standing in the Senate: Never again will colleagues be able to dismiss her as an ambitious lightweight, as many did when she first arrived in 2009. (Who said ambition was a bad thing in the Senate, anyway?) Over the course of the past year, Gillibrand has presented her colleagues with reams of information detailing examples of abuse and rape ignored by military commanders. She's coaxed victims into meeting individually with skeptical members -- who have emerged from the meetings with a changed mind. 
 
 Most impressively, she stitched together a coalition unlike most ever assembled in the modern Senate. Gillibrand can boast of having on one stage some of the most conservative and liberal senators: Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Hirono all regularly attended her press conferences. She and Paul even shed tears together at a recent event as they listened to victims of assault describe their ordeals. Gillibrand found 54 colleagues of both parties who agreed with her. In a chamber seriously lacking in bipartisanship, that's a notable accomplishment. 
 
 She bolsters her standing with women and the gay community: Gillibrand has been working for several years to elect more Democratic women to office through her "Off the Sidelines" campaign. The effort has raised millions of dollars for several of her colleagues, including Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). Having failed to advance a bill designed to bolster the protection of women serving in uniform, she will earn plaudits from women's groups. 
 
 Just a few hours after the vote, Gillibrand sent her campaign donors a message, entitled, "Never quit." 
 
 "Heartbreakingly, we fell five votes short of overcoming the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, despite earning support from a majority of the Senate," she said, adding later: "Words can’t adequately express my disappointment – but I will never quit." 
 
 The message didn't include an explicit ask for money -- but it didn't need to. 
 
 The senator also will earn even more support from the gay community, which is equally concerned about assault and rape in the ranks. While a greater percentage of women have been the victims of assault or rape, there is a larger overall number of men who have been assaulted or raped while serving in the military, according to Defense Department statistics. 
 
 But there's an important caveat regarding Gillibrand's standing with women: The recent debate exposed serious policy disagreements between the Senate's now-record 20 women. While 16 of the women supported Gillibrand's proposal, three did not, including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who emerged as a frequent and vocal critic of her plan. Several aides familiar with the debate said that the ordeal has frayed relations between the 20 women, especially between Gillibrand and McCaskill. And senators of both parties and genders have openly expressed concern that the fight has distracted from the fact that Congress took steps in the past year to enact more than 30 changes in the military's legal system to address the rise of assault and rape. 
 
 She can say "I told you so" if the Pentagon doesn't fix the problem: Gillibrand chairs a Senate Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel, giving her direct oversight of how the Pentagon is handling cases of assault and rape. She vowed Thursday to continue the fight, saying that "I will never quit" on the victims of assault and rape who pushed for reforms. If data in the coming years continue to show that the number of assault and rape cases remains high, Gillibrand will have a credible case to make to colleagues that it's time to enact the bold reforms she proposed. 
 
 Gillibrand told reporters after the vote Thursday that "Many people said to me, 'Kirsten, I’m going to watch this and if it doesn’t get better in the next six months, I’m with you next time.'" 
 
 It's a good bet there will be a next time.
– New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand has lost her fight to dramatically change the way the Pentagon handles sex-assault cases, reports AP. For now, anyway. She needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster but came up with only 55. And the Hill points out that this wasn't exactly a party-line vote: Eleven Republicans voted for the measure, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell. But 10 Democrats voted against it, including Claire McCaskill and Carl Levin, reports Politico. Under Gillibrand's bill, military commanders would no longer be the ones to decide whether to prosecute cases from within the ranks. Instead, military lawyers would make the call. "The people who don't trust the chain of the command are the victims," said Gillibrand during debate. She and proponents say cases are going unreported because victims fear retribution. But critics such as McCaskill say that the measure would make things worse and that only the Pentagon's own commanders can get the problem under control. Gillibrand may have lost the high-profile vote, but the Washington Post lays out several ways she emerges a "big winner" nonetheless. Among other things, she has raised her stature in the Senate considerably, writes Ed O'Keefe. Gillibrand promised to bring up the proposal again and said she is confident it will pass the second time around.