'Don't Ask' repeal likely part of 2011 defense budget bill

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Washington Blade

'Don't Ask' repeal likely part of 2011 defense budget bill
Action expected soon on ENDA, federal DP benefits

The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

Frank said lawmakers would seek to amend the defense measure to include a provision repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Such a move would mimic the way Congress recently enacted the hate crimes measure.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) is the sponsor of the standalone version of legislation in the House that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” No such legislation exists in the Senate, although Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he’s in talks with the Obama administration on the issue.

Asked about Frank’s prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization “always takes its cues from its congressional allies.”

“They’re the ones that write the legislation and obviously [the defense authorization] would be a great bill to have repeal be a part of,” she said. “That’s where it should be.”

David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.

But Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said while passing a repeal as part of the defense authorization bill is a possibility, his organization is still “looking at all options,” including a standalone bill.

Nix also said SLDN is urging President Obama to include repeal as part of his defense budget request, which is expected to be delivered to Congress early next year.

Whether or not Congress will take up the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal next year was recently brought into question by comments Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, reportedly made to The Hill newspaper.

In a Nov. 4 article, Durbin was indirectly quoted as saying he wasn’t certain whether repeal would be on next year’s agenda. A Senate Democratic aide clarified for the Blade on the condition of anonymity that Durbin was referring to the legislative calendar as a whole, noting that it’s too early to determine whether any particular bill will be on the agenda.

But Frank said it was a “terrible mistake” for Durbin to suggest that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” wouldn’t happen next year. Frank is among the supporters who have asserted Congress would take up repeal in 2010.

“I think that’s a terrible mistake for him to say that and I believe that it will be a great injustice to wait any longer,” Frank said. “I don’t think he has that option.”

Nix said he was surprised Durbin made the comments — particularly because the lawmaker is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

“The signals we are getting is that [a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal] will be and can be passed in 2010,” Nix said.

Progress on ENDA, DP benefits expected

Action on other pro-LGBT legislation seems more imminent. Frank said Congress could advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a bill providing partner benefits to LGBT federal employees in the near future.

And the prospects for passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, he said, are the most promising.

“That one I’m the most confident is going to become law because I think you have Senate support for it — enough to get to the 60” votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Frank said.

Lieberman is sponsor of the Senate version of the legislation while Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Baldwin was recently quoted in The Hill as saying she “absolutely” believes there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House.

Frank, who’s sponsoring ENDA in the House, said the bill is “in very good shape” and predicted the House Education & Labor Committee would mark up ENDA before year’s end. He noted that a House floor vote is expected to occur no later than February.

“So I say,” Frank said, “the schedule is the federal domestic partner benefits anytime in the next few months, ENDA out of the House in December or in February with the Senate voting in the spring, [and] ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ part of the military authorization, which means into the summer.”

Herwitt, however, said HRC remains hopeful that a House vote on ENDA could take place before year’s end, and that House and Senate committee markups for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act could also happen by that time.

Still, Frank said there’s a question of whether advocates can find 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on ENDA and the proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“The critical question is, given the Republicans getting worse and worse on LGBT issues, whether we’ll get any Republicans voting,” he said. “I assume we would have safe senators — [Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [Sen. Susan] Collins, maybe [Sen. George] Voinovich or one or two others — but that’s the key.”

Herwitt also said the Senate is “always a challenge for every issue, so we have work to do before us.”

Less certainty for other pro-gay bills

Other bills are pending in Congress, although the prospects for those proposals becoming law this congressional session are less certain.

Advocates are hoping lawmakers will include as part of comprehensive immigration reform a provision enabling gay Americans to sponsor foreign partners for residency. Such a provision would be similar to standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is pushing for inclusion of the provision in immigration reform legislation that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are expected to introduce later this year.

“They are still operating on a timeline of introduction around the end of the year,” Ralls said. “All indications that we have so far is that it’s probably late December, early January in terms of introduction of an actual bill.”

Ralls said Immigration Equality is “certainly still hopeful” that UAFA-like provisions would be part of these comprehensive bills.

“It’s a long road on a legislative timeline between now and introduction,” Ralls said. “But we’re in touch with all three of those offices and our hope is that they will all be inclusive.”

Herwitt said HRC also is hopeful that a UAFA-like provision would become part of immigration reform, but she couldn’t speak to “whether or not immigration reform in and of itself will move this session.”

Also pending before Congress is the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The House bill currently has 104 co-sponsors; no Senate version has been introduced.

John Doty, a Nadler spokesperson, said supporters are trying to add co-sponsors for the legislation, noting lawmakers would probably act on other LGBT legislation before the Respect for Marriage Act.

“I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up,” he said. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills.”

While the Respect for Marriage Act may be less established than other LGBT-related bills, Herwitt said many are hoping for hearings on the proposal this congressional session.

But Doty said no hearing or markup has been scheduled. A Senate companion also has not yet been introduced, but advocates say they’ve been working with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on the issue.

Frank is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and said he’s not optimistic about the bill’s chances because “marriage is the toughest of these issues.”

“That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year,” he said. “Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues.”

Another bill introduced last month by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) would restrict federal funds for states that have restrictions on adoption based on sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status. The bill was introduced with no original co-sponsors, but 12 lawmakers have since signed on in support.

Frank said he intends to sign on as a co-sponsor to the legislation, but was not optimistic about the bill’s chances in this Congress.

“Even people from certain states who don’t agree with that policy will be reluctant to vote to deny money to their states,” he said. “Plus, you have Republican opposition in general. Remember, the Republicans are now almost monolithically against us.”

Herwitt said HRC supports the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation and “will do whatever we need to do to help move the bill forward,” but having additional support from child welfare groups would bolster the bill’s chances.

“I think this bill needs to be seen and viewed positively, most importantly, by the child welfare professionals and have the support of the leading child welfare and children’s rights organizations,” she said.

Advocates also are trying to make foreign policy provisions related to LGBT issues into law as part of a foreign relations spending bill.

The House in June passed a version of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill inclusive of such provisions. The language would, among other things, instruct the State Department to advocate for repealing laws that criminalize homosexuality abroad and improve reporting on human rights abuses against LGBT people overseas.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, is leading efforts to convince Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to include these provisions in his markup for the Senate’s fiscal year 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs authorization bill. A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the legislation would be introduced this calendar year.

Still, Bromley wasn’t optimistic that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would push through the State Department funding bill this year.

“We’ve been hopeful that it would be introduced before the end of the year, but there’s been such a backlog with needing to get through lots of confirmations and an increased focus on foreign assistance reform that we’re just really beginning to wonder [if] there would be time to get it through,” he said.

Bromley said it would be “great news” if the committee acted on the legislation, but noted concerns remain over whether “there’s space in the committee agenda to actually get it through this year.”

First they tied the Mathew Shepard bill to the Defense Bill and now this... I guess gay rights sell better when they're attached to bombs?

[Samuel]

Because this way you can say that they blocked a bill that would provide our troops with "insert vital equipment here". And then you just have to question why they hate the troops.

Politics in this case is the art of getting extremely loaded questions.

[Duckie]

Well, it might just be battered wife's syndrome, but, any word on movement is fine and well recieved by me. At least they're committing to a 2 year period in which it will be done now, rather than 'by 2017' (actual words of the HRC).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

If Obama can tackle Hate Crimes (which he already did), ENDA, and DADT by his first term then that really just leaves DOMA as the big and last objective for his second term - assuming that SCOTUS doesn't get to it first.

[open_sketchbook]

First they tied the Mathew Shepard bill to the Defense Bill and now this... I guess gay rights sell better when they're attached to bombs?

Clearly, the quickest path to gay rights is a third world war.

I guess this sorta settles questions of why Obama's government waited so long to repel it; they've waited for the budget to come along so they can grab the military by the balls to get the change they want.

... That metaphor just feels wierd in this context.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Clearly, the quickest path to gay rights is a third world war.

I guess this sorta settles questions of why Obama's government waited so long to repel it; they've waited for the budget to come along so they can grab the military by the balls to get the change they want.

... That metaphor just feels wierd in this context.

IIRC, the Pentagon is actually in favour of repeal. It's Republicans and Blue Dogs that they need to pin down, and including it in a bill that has to pass is probably the only way of doing it.

[open_sketchbook]

I see. Well, in that case, they're grabbing the militaristic Republicans by the balls instead, because no self-respecting Republican opposes giving money to the military.

What I'm trying to say is that balls are involved.

[Pelranius]

I don't think Michelle Bachmann has any balls.

Personally, I'd like it to come before 2010, on the off chance that Congress switches control.

[Duckie]

I'd like it to have come yesterday and include a free ice cream for each year as an "I'm sorry" payment, but we're not going to get spine out of Democrats, let alone get them to force the Blue Dogs to take even the slightest risk their election prospects over it. 2011 is about as good as we'll get, if indeed it actually comes in 2011.

They might say "Sorry, votes aren't there, wait until 2012", and it just might be a long time through the repeating "Wait until presidential election, sorry, it's midterms soon, we lost congress, sorry, wait for the president" cycle.

[SirNitram]

Only problem I can see is gay rights groups deciding that their badly needed hate crimes protection is not enough, never enough, don't dare vote for Dems. But I fully support grabbing the GOP by the balls, and/or punching them repeatedly in said balls, and sticking it to the one bill Republicans won't block.

[Duckie]

Yeah, there's always the danger that the blog-cry of war will become a self-sustaining feedback loop, where anything the White House or Congress does just pisses them off more. For example, I've read quite a few people who honestly admit that right now they cannot see themselves voting for Democrats in 2010 without ENDA and DADT Repeal. That's probably a self-defeating thing right there, since without Democratic hold in 2010 we'll never see either of those, but the outrage at having to choose between fair-weather friends and absolute enemy is understandable, especially given that the weather is almost never fair for controversial (significant) issues.

With that said, I'm ambivalent about the current protest going on- Don't Ask, Don't Give, it's apparantly called. It's a call to stop donating to the DNC, who quite rightfully can be accused simply shell gaming funds given in liberal states and by liberals to anti-gay, anti-choice blue dogs in order to save their seats, and to switch to donating to local candidates and individuals who are demonstratably useful. The idea is apparantly that the DNC needs a reminder that campaign contributions aren't just free money but require action on behalf of the donors, and said action isn't 'don't do anything because it would threaten the precariously poised "regressive, but not too regressive" stances the blue dogs have'.

On the one hand, I don't like money I give under the understanding I'm helping Democrats with a capital D being used to fund some anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-health care, anti-climate change "democrat" in Arkansas like Blanche Lincoln.

Buuuut on the other hand, if we didn't have Blue Dogs, we'd just have Republicans, so in the end the DNC is just doing what's in the best interest of itself. And, until the Republicans stop being Republicans, as unpalatable as it is to say it, the interests of the Democratic Congressional majority are the interests of LGBT Americans, even if it means the DNC reaching out to Democrats who don't support them personally. Such Democrats can, after all, be occasionally whipped into line, and are inherently more reasonable than Republicans, being twice as liberal on average.

So I can see why some people are pissed off, even if the bitter 'screw it, sink the whole damn thing' choice is obviously illogical, it's a lot more attractive to the various disaffected young people who make up the internet generation LGBT movement and moreover a lot of the modern grassroots progressive movement that got Obama* into the white house. More attractive than the 'continue to throw your back into the democratic effort for some incidental leadership and occasional advocacy', that is. I can see where it comes from, even if I don't think it's a wise route.

*Part of this anger might be because Obama was percieved by said the internet grassroots such as MoveOn, Kos, and the like as "The Progressive Candidate", when really he's quite Clintonian and moderate in terms of his politics. Further, the massive exploit-crisis-to-pass-single-payer-health-care-and-climate-change-and-other-things First 100 Days Revolution expected by some to happen never did, as he's quite cautious about using his political capital. To many progressives, it felt like the most liberal possible candidate was elected and he's sitting around doing nothing except taking Single Payer off the table, refusing to make ads for gay rights in Maine, and bailing out corporate executives while defending DOMA and the Patriot Act. What they probably fail to realise is that, regrettably, such a candidate is the most liberal person who can possibly be elected in America.

[The Romulan Republic]

Only problem I can see is gay rights groups deciding that their badly needed hate crimes protection is not enough, never enough, don't dare vote for Dems.

Yes, it would be quite a sad irony if this ultimate fails to pass because the loss of support from gay rights groups (among others) costs the Democrats some of their majority.

I personally think its somewhat childish of gay rights groups to attack Obama for not doing this right away. Health Care reform (and quite a few other things) are really bigger priorities, after all. I understand that when people feel they're being treated unjustly they aren't nessissarily going to accept waiting for a year or two, but throwing away everything because Obama or Congress are not omnipotent and infallible would seem rather pathetic.

[Broomstick]

I also suspect some of the stuff in the OP article is also "floating a trial balloon" to draw out the opposition and see what sort of fuss they'll cause. This administration does seem to excel at that tactic.

And attaching it to a defense bill is classic "If you want our support for your stuff you have to support our stuff" politics.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

How often is a defense bill passed in Congress?

[CmdrWilkens]

How often is a defense bill passed in Congress?

Annually.

First they tied the Mathew Shepard bill to the Defense Bill and now this... I guess gay rights sell better when they're attached to bombs?

Its a procedural matter. Because spending bills have to originate with the House of Representatives you get the first crack at crafting legislation there. In turn the rules of the House give a lot more power to the Speaker and Majority Leader to craft the bill they want and run with the amendments they want. Because you don't have the option to filibuster or hold or otherwise delay legislation short of amassing large majorities to block passage through procedural holes it is easier to get a bill passed through the House.

The next step is the bill moving to the Senate and since it has to originate with the House the bill (with any such amendment like repealing DADT) comes in as the default legislation which means stripping the provision would require a majority vote AND have the revision survive both the conference committee and the conference report vote. In other words if the House is able to attach a repeal of DADT to the Defense Appropriations Bill the best opponents could hope for is to stall it to death in the Senate and fund the military with nothing but continuing resolutions, more likely even Reid would be able to maneuver the bill through to passage whereupon the amendment becomes law and DADT goes away.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

How often is a defense bill passed in Congress?

Annually.

Then why not attach it with the 2010 defense bill? Is there a reason why we should wait another 2 years?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The 2010 defense authorization has already been passed, and that was the one that included the Hate Crimes act, my friend. The 2011 defense authorization will be passed in 2010 (or else the military wouldn't have money for part of 2011), and so they are not, in fact, waiting two years--just one.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The 2010 defense authorization has already been passed, and that was the one that included the Hate Crimes act, my friend. The 2011 defense authorization will be passed in 2010 (or else the military wouldn't have money for part of 2011), and so they are not, in fact, waiting two years--just one.

D'OH! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I certainly hope that will be the case.

[Alyrium Denryle]

such a candidate is the most liberal person who can possibly be elected in America.

And that is what really pisses me off. That I dont have a choice. I can vote for the spineless right wing party, or the appropriately lock-step fascist party when I am personally center-left (using the Euroscale). I dont have a choice. Simply to maintain status quo rather than have my entire country, on every issue, lurch rightward into stark raving lunacy I have to continually put my human rights on hold. "No wait... I have to hold off on clamouring to be considered a legal person because if I dont tens of thousands of preventable deaths will occur". I should no have to make that choice. I should have a viable option such that i can in good conscience with a reasonable degree of success throw my support in behind a person who will not only move to make me a legal person (fucking corporations have more civil rights than me), but will also move to prevent said tens of thousands of deaths.

The fact that I must and am socially and morally expected to trade off my fucking human rights against the lives of others infuriates me to no end.

But I do it anyway. Because it is the right thing to do.

I do of course use the term human rights broadly and mostly in a strict legal context, as I do not actually accept the concept of metaphysically derived inherent rights.

[Broomstick]

The 2010 defense authorization has already been passed, and that was the one that included the Hate Crimes act, my friend. The 2011 defense authorization will be passed in 2010 (or else the military wouldn't have money for part of 2011), and so they are not, in fact, waiting two years--just one.

D'OH! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I certainly hope that will be the case.

Remember that the Federal fiscal year doesn't match the calendar year. Originally starting in July, it now starts October 1. This accounts for some of the mis-match here.