National
Filibuster threat makes ENDA unlikely in 2010
A small corps of LGBT political insiders, speaking on condition that they not be identified, believe the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is headed for almost certain defeat this year because supporters can’t line up the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome a filibuster.
Breaking what some have called an informal code of silence adopted by mainline LGBT political organizations, at least four sources familiar with the gay and transgender civil rights bill said the lack of Senate votes became clear long before Republican Scott Brown won his upset victory last week in Massachusetts.
“What we’re hearing is there is just no clear path to pass ENDA in the Senate,” said one activist familiar with the bill’s lobbying effort. “They don’t think they have 60 votes to pass it.”
Another source with ties to Capitol Hill and national LGBT political groups based in Washington was more definitive.
“ENDA has been off the agenda since before the Massachusetts election because they couldn’t secure the votes in the Senate,” the source told DC Agenda.
The bill would bar private sector employment discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Opposition to the gender identity provision, included to help protect transgender people, is among the contributing factors that’s prevented supporters from lining up the needed 60 votes to break a filibuster, one of the sources said.
The Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and National Center for Transgender Equality — three leading groups working on ENDA — say they are confident the House of Representatives will pass ENDA in the summer or early fall.
Officials with HRC and NCTE have said they remain hopeful that Democrats and a few moderate Republicans in the Senate will unite to defeat a filibuster and pass the long-awaited LGBT civil rights measure.
“I’m still optimistic,” said veteran transgender activist Mara Keisling, executive director of NCTE. “The Senate’s always been the harder challenge on every piece of legislation, not just on LGBT legislation. So the Senate’s a challenge; we’ll get there.”
As of this week, the bill had 194 co-sponsors in the House and 44 co-sponsors in the Senate. Only two of the Senate co-sponsors are Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both from Maine.
When combined with its lead sponsor in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and the lead sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the measure has what most observers believe to be at least 195 certain votes in the House and 45 assumed votes in the Senate.
Frank and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime supporter of ENDA, have said they were confident that backers would line up more than the 218 House votes needed to pass the bill.
But in the Senate, LGBT civil rights lobbyists have been reluctant to reveal the findings of their highly confidential head counts, including leanings of the 17 Senate Democrats that have not signed on as co-sponsors. Among them are Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both of Virginia.
A longtime practice in Washington lobbying has been to hold off on publicly disclosing the names of lawmakers who are uncommitted or say they are leaning against a bill, with the hope that they could be persuaded to change their minds. If a lawmaker is pressured to publicly declare his or her position, the lawmaker is less likely to switch positions out of fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, according to seasoned lobbyists and members of Congress.
One of the sources who told DC Agenda that ENDA appears dead in the Senate said that groups like HRC, the Task Force and NCTE are diligently working behind the scenes to line up more Senate Democrats to commit to voting for cloture, the parliamentary procedure used to end a filibuster. Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture.
Most political observers believe supporters have the 51 votes to pass the bill in the 100-member Senate, if a filibuster can be broken.
Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, was circumspect about ENDA’s prospects in the Senate in an interview earlier this month with DC Agenda.
“We have education that we need to do and have conversations,” she said. “I know that Sen. Merkley and his staff have been really on top of this, and having those conversations staff-to-staff — and the senator is having colleague-to-colleague conversations. And we just need to continue some of that process and then see where we are with the vote count.”
Asked whether the gender identity provision could be a problem in the Senate, Herwitt said, “I think what I’m saying is we’re still in the process of figuring all of that out. The conversations are still happening; the education process is still ongoing.” She added that HRC is pushing hard for a “fully inclusive bill.”
Spokespeople for the Task Force, National Stonewall Democrats, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund and the ACLU’s LGBT Rights Project did not return calls this week seeking comment on the reports that ENDA backers may be unable to break a Senate filibuster.
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said it’s too soon for Reid to assess ENDA’s chances on the Senate floor because the bill has yet to be reported out of committee.
Last November, the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, chaired by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an ENDA co-sponsor, held a legislative hearing on the bill. At the time of the hearing, Harkin promised to hold a markup hearing on the bill this year, but he did not set a date for the markup.
Markup hearings are required under both House and Senate rules for making final revisions of bills before voting in committee to send them to the floor for a vote by the full House or Senate.
“In the hearing, Sen. Harkin said that he wants to move the bill this year,” said Bergen Kenny, Harkin’s press secretary, in an e-mail this week to DC Agenda. She did not respond to questions about when Harkin would hold the markup or whether he was aware of reports that supporters lacked the votes to break a filibuster.
Julie Edwards, Merkley’s press secretary, pointed to a statement by Harkin at the legislative hearing last November that he would like to see the bill moved to the Senate floor in the spring of 2010.
“I would say that’s the goal,” Edwards said. “That’s what we’re working toward. We continue to reach out to other offices. I know supporters of this legislation are doing the same.”
Asked if Merkley believes he has 60 votes to break a filibuster, Edwards said, “We haven’t done a whip count on this. But we’re continually building support for the bill.”
Although many Capitol Hill observers think the House will pass ENDA sometime this year, Frank raised concerns among some activists earlier this month when he told the Advocate that lawmakers still have problems with the bill’s transgender provision.
“There continues to be concerns on the part of many members about the transgender issue, particularly about the question of places where people are without their clothes — showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.,” the Advocate quoted him as saying.
“We still have this issue about what happens when people who present themselves as one sex but have the physical characteristics of the other sex, what rules govern what happens in locker rooms, showers, etc,” he said.
Frank was out of the country on House business this week and could not be reached. His press secretary, Harry Gural, said Frank’s comments to the Advocate should not be interpreted to mean that the congressman feels the bill is in trouble in the House.
“They don’t expect a holdup on this,” said Gural, who added that no one familiar with the bill believes an attempt will be made to remove the transgender provision.
He was referring to a blowup in 2007, when Frank and House Democratic leaders determined there weren’t enough votes in the House to pass a trans-inclusive version of ENDA. At Frank’s urging, House Democrats introduced and pushed through the full House a revised bill that didn’t include protection for transgender people. The bill died a year later when the Senate failed to act on it following an outcry by many activists urging the Senate not to pass it.
“Barney said that is not going to happen this time,” Gural said.
National
Antony Blinken, USAID mark World AIDS Day
Officials reiterate Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to end pandemic
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the U.S. Agency for International Development on Sunday marked World AIDS Day.
Blinken in his statement echoed the Biden-Harris administration’s call “for collective action with partners around the world to sustain and accelerate the great progress we have made toward ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.”
“Over the past four years, the State Department has worked tirelessly to save lives through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),” the statement reads. “In partnership with foreign governments, PEPFAR has changed the trajectory of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and now supports more than 20 million people on lifesaving treatment across 55 countries around the world. Independent analyses have documented a direct link of this lifesaving work to economic growth across PEPFAR partner countries. Bipartisan action on a clean, five-year reauthorization of PEPFAR is essential to ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat and to implementing the program’s plans to sustain success over the long term through partner country and community-led and managed programs.”
Blinken further stressed World AIDS Day “is a day to remember the more than 42 million lives lost to HIV/AIDS — a stark reminder of the threat this virus continues to pose if we do not ensure that partner countries have the vision and capacity to sustain a bold response.”
“We must continue to chart a course together that will help communities stay safe and prosperous by ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat,” he said.
USAID spokesperson Benjamin Suarato in a statement echoed Blinken.
“Each year, we observe World AIDS Day to honor people living with and affected by HIV, remember those we have lost, and recommit to ending HIV as a public health threat by 2030,” said Suarato. “For decades, USAID has worked to support those affected by HIV, as well as the health workers, scientists, researchers, advocates, and communities dedicated to the HIV response.”
Suarato noted this year’s World AIDS Day’s theme, “Collective Action: Sustain and Accelerate HIV Progress,” “underscores the long-term leadership of the United States to galvanize global solidarity and make critical investments to reduce HIV transmission, improve access to treatment, and advance transformative partnerships to sustain a locally-led HIV response.” Suarato also highlighted PEPFAR has saved “more than 25 million lives and helped more than 5.5 million babies to be born HIV-free across 55 countries.”
“We recognize that ending HIV as a public health threat requires enduring cooperation with partner country governments, civil society, faith-based, and other non-governmental organizations, researchers, and scientists,” said Suarato. “It also requires us to continue to elevate the leadership of communities and individuals living with and affected by HIV. On this World AIDS Day, USAID reaffirms our dedication to collective action.”
President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden on Sunday will commemorate World AIDS Day at the White House. AIDS Memorial Quilt panels will be shown on the White House’s South Lawn for the first time.
The Washington Blade will have further coverage of the White House commemoration.
Federal Government
HIV positive patients can now receive organs from HIV positive donors
New HHS rule applies to liver and kidney transplants
A new rule announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will allow HIV positive patients to receive organs from HIV positive donors, a move that will expand the pool of available organs and reduce wait times.
“This rule removes unnecessary barriers to kidney and liver transplants, expanding the organ donor pool and improving outcomes for transplant recipients with HIV,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.
The agency noted that the final rule also aims to combat stigma and health inequities associated with HIV.
“Research shows that kidney and liver transplants between donors and recipients with HIV can be performed safely and effectively,” Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine added. “This policy change reflects our commitment to following the evidence and updating our approaches as we learn more. By removing research requirements where they are no longer needed, we can help more people with HIV access life-saving transplants.”
HHS notes that the rule applies to kidney and liver transplants, which correspond with the areas in which the evidence from biomedical research is the most “robust.”
Federal Government
LGBTQ federal workers face tough decisions, big worries amid Trump transition
‘I plan to leave after the inauguration’
Donald Trump’s return to the White House promises to shake up Washington in ways not seen even during the norm-shattering Trump 1.0 years: on the table are blueprints for radically reforming the federal civil service into a more partisan institution where loyalty is prized at the expense of expertise and competence; off the table, among other things, are anti-discrimination protections that had long bolstered the rights and welfare of LGBTQ federal government employees.
Washington proudly boasts, per-capita, the highest LGBTQ population of any city in any state in America. Ninety-two percent of the city’s 678,000+ residents voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. So, according to exit polls, did 86 percent of LGBTQ voters.
Many of D.C.’s LGBTQ residents who work for the federal government find themselves, now, at an unenviable crossroads. Some stood to lose their jobs regardless of who won in November because they serve in higher-ranking “political” roles that typically turn over administration-to-administration, but more are “career” employees with experience serving with both parties in charge of the White House.
Many find themselves choosing whether to wade into a hyperlocal job market that is, at the moment, competitive for job seekers — or continue, if they can, working under institutions run by Republicans who have vowed to destroy them (or at least shake them up, whatever that will mean).
The Washington Blade has spoken with LGBTQ employees in the federal government who worry about the welfare of gay, queer, and trans colleagues they plan to leave behind for jobs in the private sector. They share a deep concern, too, for the LGBTQ Americans who, they believe, will suffer harmful consequences of policy and governance under the incoming administration.
A lesbian attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice and a gay senior official for the U.S. Department of Commerce spoke anonymously with the Blade to share experiences and observations at their respective agencies.
Do you expect to be working elsewhere when Trump 2.0 begins in January
[Justice Department]: I plan to leave shortly after the inauguration.
[Commerce Department]: I hope to be working elsewhere by the next term. The job market is incredibly competitive, but that’s because the Biden administration hired the best and brightest public servants that represent every community in America. It’s particularly important that companies and nonprofits seek out the great early/mid-career staff from the administration. Many finished college remotely during the pandemic, to then immediately serve their country. They have exceptional work experience, but can be at a hiring disadvantage behind their classmates who immediately entered the workforce.
Would you be (or might you be) allowed to continue in your role under the next administration if you wished to do so?
[Justice]: Probably not.
Under the next administration, if you were allowed to continue in your role or serve in a different position at your agency or perhaps work elsewhere in the federal government, would you? Why or why not?
[Justice]: No—risk of doxing is too high; did it once before and not interested in doing it again.
[Commerce]: I would not work in the Trump administration, even if allowed. To work for someone who believes in retribution over public service would violate the oath I took to my country and the Constitution he refuses to respect. I look forward to doing what queer people have done for all of American history: shining brightly in the face of hate and being a success in spite of every attempt to shame.
What can you tell me about the post-election turnover at your agency that you’ve seen so far or expect to see in the coming months, as compared to that which you might have experienced during previous transitions?
[Justice]: I expect to see many more people leave than in any previous admin change.
[Commerce]: Experienced career staff who survived the first Trump years are burned out and leaving. This is a horrible loss for the American people who are losing the dedicated subject matter experts who do the hard work of making their lives easier, safer, and healthier. So many of them work for the federal government because of how it can be used to help people in big ways. They’re horrified to think of all the people, especially minorities, women, and queer people, will, instead, be targeted. They don’t want to be a part of that. They can’t live with that.
Are any of your LGBTQ colleagues staying in their jobs? If so, what can you share about the reasons you’ve heard for their decision to stay?
[Justice]: Yes; many will stay because they don’t have the luxury of leaving without a job lined up.
What are some of your biggest concerns specific to how your agency might be run under the Trump 2.0 regime?
[Justice]: They will dismantle the civil rights division at DOJ or completely shift its focus.
[Commerce]: I’m horrified at how data may be weaponized against vulnerable people. So much work has been done to help communities by building close-knit relationships with leaders across the countries. Will all these programs focused on supporting the most vulnerable and underserved among us be turned on them to identify easy targets to victimize?
Broadly speaking, what concerns do you have about the rights, safety, and wellbeing of LGBTQ folks who will remain in the civil service post-January, or those who might join the federal government’s civilian workforce after Trump takes over?
[Justice]: LGBTQ+ people will be at greater risk of doxing; bathroom flexibilities will disappear; harassment will go unchecked.
[Commerce]: We are barely out of the shadow of the Lavender Scare, where thousands of queer American public servants were harassed, humiliated, and often fired in shame. It starts with removing Pride flags, then the photos of our partners on our desks, and then we’re escorted from the building for being security risks. LGBTQ Americans are the soldiers, and scientists, and civil servants and should never, ever have to worry if their mere existence could suddenly cost them their security clearance, their career path, or their safety.
How do you think staff turnover at your agency will impact its work under the next administration?
[Justice]: Staff turnover will severely undermine DOJ’s work and protecting the rule of law.
If, ultimately, a disproportionate number of LGBTQ workers leave for jobs in the private sector, are you concerned about harms that might result from the loss of voices representing the community in the federal government and/or in your agency specifically?
[Justice]: Re: loss of voices, yes. The federal government cannot function as effectively when it doesn’t reflect the public it serves.
Ozempic: Is it worth the risk?
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe, Asia, and Canada
PHOTOS: World AIDS Day at the White House
What LGBTQ buyers, sellers need to know about new real estate rules
Antony Blinken, USAID mark World AIDS Day
Trump administration is set to abandon LGBTQ Africans
Christian Nationalism: a ‘prop’ to achieving power?
Comings & Goings
Celebrate Thanksgiving weekend with drag
