Connect with us

National

Levin uncertain about ‘Don’t Ask’ vote count

Senate prepares for critical Tuesday vote

Published

on

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Monday expressed uncertainty over whether the Senate would have sufficient votes to move forward with major defense budget legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

During a news conference, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he doesn’t know whether there are 60 votes to end a filibuster and move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

The vote for cloture on the legislation, which has language that would lead to the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is set for Tuesday at 2:15 p.m.

“I hope we can get to cloture,” Levin said. “I know a number of you will ask the question, ‘Do we have the votes?’ My answer is, ‘I don’t know whether we have the votes or not.’ I haven’t done a whip check.”

Levin said he hopes the votes are present to move forward with the defense authorization bill because of “critically important” provisions in the legislation related to military pay and weapons systems.

Provided all 59 Democrats in the Senate vote in favor of cloture, at least one Republican vote is needed to move forward with the defense authorization bill, but GOP leadership is reportedly withholding support for the bill because of a limit imposed on the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said three amendments would be allowed for consideration of the defense authorization bill: an amendment to strip out the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language; a measure to attach the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, to the legislation; and a measure addressing the “secret holds” senators can place on presidential nominees.

Sources have told the Blade that moderate Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), are seeking concessions from Democratic leadership in exchange for breaking with the Republican caucus and voting for cloture.

Levin said he’s unaware of any concessions that Collins or other Republicans are seeking over the defense authorization bill. Still, he said he’s spoken with the Maine senator about a previous version of the unanimous consent agreement.

“She and I talked about the consent agreement,” Levin said. “She had some difficulty with it. It wasn’t that she would vote for it if it were changed. That’s not what we talked about. It was she had some difficulty with an earlier draft, and, frankly, I thought she was right.”

Levin said he didn’t ask Collins during this conversation about how the Maine senator intended to vote on the cloture measure on Tuesday.

Asked by the Blade what would happen if cloture isn’t invoked on Tuesday, Levin said an unsuccessful vote would be a “real setback” and said he couldn’t predict what would happen if the bill came up again after Election Day.

“Anyone who tries to predict what will happen in lame duck has got a lot more courage than I do,” Levin said.

A failure to pass the defense authorization bill would almost be unprecedented. A Democratic aide said during the news conference that Congress has passed defense authorization legislation every year for the past 48 years.

If cloture is invoked on Tuesday, opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would have the opportunity to strip out the repeal language through an amendment on the Senate floor.

Levin said he doesn’t know what opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are planning when the Senate proceeds tomorrow with the legislation.

“I don’t know what we’re going to see on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Levin said. “It’s going to be up to people — if we can get to cloture — who will offer the amendment.”

A Democratic aide said the votes needed to strip the repeal language from the legislation would be either 51 or 60, depending on the agreement reached between majority and minority leadership.

But the main focus of Levin’s news conference was to address arguments from McCain, who has objected to advancing the defense authorization bill on the basis that non-germane amendments are planned for the legislation.

“For many, many years, we never put any extraneous items on the [defense authorization] bill, because it was so important to defense and we just didn’t allow it,” McCain said, according to a Levin statement. “Starting last year, Carl Levin and Harry Reid put hate crimes on it.”

McCain on the floor last week lamented that hate crimes protections legislation was signed into law last year as an amendment to FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act.

During today’s news conference, Levin noted that hate crimes legislation had been attached to defense authorization legislation three additional times prior to 2009, although the measure never made it to the president’s desk before last year.

“Sen. McCain is incorrect on at least two accounts in the one statement,” Levin said. “Last year was not the first time that hate crimes legislation was added to the defense authorization bill … and it was approved by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority each of those three previous times.”

Levin also said other non-germane amendments had been considered as part of the defense authorization bill, including measures on concealed weapons, indecency standards as well as a previous amendment on “secret holds.”

An amendment for campaign finance reform that McCain sponsored in 2000 was also considered as part of the defense authorization bill, according to Levin.

“If we want to give these men and women in the military confidence in their government, we should have fully disclosed who it is that contributes to the political campaigns,” McCain said in 2000, according to a Levin statement.

Levin said he defended McCain’s right to offer this amendment in 2000 as he plans to defend the right of anyone who introduces the DREAM Act this year.

“People have a right to use the rules here and to suggest anything to the contrary is just simply inaccurate and I think has no place in the debate,” Levin said.

McCain’s office didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on Levin’s remarks.

Also during the presser, Levin disputed an account that the DREAM Act would be attached to the defense authorization bill as part of a manager’s amendment that would be inclusive of defense-related items.

A Republican source had earlier told the Blade that Democratic leadership was planning consideration of the DREAM Act and a manager’s amendment as one measure.

“That’s news to me,” Levin said. “I would love to know where you heard it. I’d like to check your source.”

Still, Levin said he expects the DREAM Act to be the first amendment offered to the defense authorization bill on Tuesday following a successful cloture vote.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

Continue Reading

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.

Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members. 

She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing. 

Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.  

This post will be updated as more details are announced.

Continue Reading

Popular