National
U.S. House approves defense bill with anti-gay provisions
Bill reaffirms DOMA, could disrupt ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
The U.S. House approved on Thursday major Pentagon budget legislation that includes anti-gay language that could disrupt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and would reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act.
By a vote of 322-96, the Republican-controlled House approved the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill after three days of debate that discussed continued military operations in Afghanistan, funding for next-generation military programs and increased pay rates for U.S. troops.
Among the many provisions of the defense authorization bill is anti-gay language that the House Armed Services Committee inserted upon consideration of the legislation.
The most high-profile anti-gay provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) — is language that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include the four military service chiefs. Such a provision would complicate the repeal process established by the law signed in December, which would implement open service after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Another provision, offered as an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), reaffirms that the Defense Department and its regulations are subject to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Yet another provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo) — prohibits military facilities for being used for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, and prevents military chaplains from presiding over same-sex marriages in their official capacities. The language would expand the federal restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond what DOMA already imposes.
Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, expressed concerns over passage of the legislation — particularly for the inclusion of a provision authorizing worldwide war against terrorism suspects and nations suspected of supporting them — in addition to objecting to the provision that would complicate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“Trying to throw a roadblock up to derail ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal at this point is a desperate attempt to postpone the inevitable,” Murphy said. “For nearly 20 years, lesbian, gay and bisexual service members have been forced to hide who they are and who they love in order to serve their country. It was with the will of the president, the uniformed and civilian leadership of the military and Congress itself that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was repealed and its implementation will continue to move forward successfully despite the attempts by some House members to disrupt it.”
A number of lawmakers who supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year voted in favor of the defense authorization bill despite the anti-gay language. On the House floor, some pro-repeal lawmakers said they were casting affirmative votes because they said they think the bill as whole is good for the U.S. armed forces.
On Tuesday, Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services personnel committee, objected to the language in the bill related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as she expressed support for the legislation as a whole.
“While there are many good provisions in this bill, I must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and lesbians from serving in uniform,” Davis said. “One of the liberties that we as Americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. These individuals should be entitled to serve their Nation in uniform and should not be denied the opportunity.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was also among the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters who voted in favor of the defense authorization bill.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader voted for the defense authorization bill despite the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language because she believes this provision won’t ultimately make it to the president’s desk.
“Leader Pelosi strongly opposes the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] language in the [defense] Authorization bill but believes the provisions concerning [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal will be removed in conference,” Hammill said. “If these provisions remain intact and are an obstacle to [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal implementation, she believes President Obama should veto the legislation.”
But each of the four openly gay members of Congress — Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — were among the among the 96 “no” votes on the legislation.
Although the House approved the defense authorization bill with anti-gay language, passing such a measure into law would be challenging because the Democratic-controlled Senate would have to agree to the anti-gay language during conference negotiations.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is looking to the Senate to ensure the anti-gay provisions won’t appear in the final version of the defense authorization bill.
“The opposition may well believe they won the day in the House, simply outnumbering repeal advocates,” Sarvis said. “But this fight is far from over. We must look to repeal supporters in the Senate, where the defense bill will be taken up next and where we are better positioned than in the House. We need to beat back this harmful language and make sure it does not survive in conference committee.”
Another roadblock for the anti-gay language is President Obama, who would have to sign the provisions into law as part of the larger measure for them to enacted. The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy earlier this week denouncing the provisions related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA — although stopped short of threatening to veto the bill over this language.
Moreover, the certification expansion for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal may well be a moot point even if the legislation reaches the president’s desk. Defense officials have testified that certification for repeal could happen mid-summer, and the final version of the defense bill likely will not reach the president’s desk until after that time, rendering the provision useless.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed skepticism about the anti-gay measures becoming law or thwarting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“The passage of the defense authorization bill with these hostile amendments included comes as no surprise, and it should not become a cause for concern as long as our allies in the Senate and the president all stand strong and refuse to support a defense bill containing these amendments,” he said. “These amendments were nothing short of a waste of time by lawmakers who were sent to Washington to do serious business and a waste of taxpayer money. The Pentagon, the president, and the American people have made it abundantly clear — we are moving forward and building a stronger military free of unnecessary discrimination.”
No attempt was made on the House floor to strip the defense authorization bill of its anti-gay language. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had intended to offer an amendment to remove the language related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to the Rules Committee website, but never offered the measure. Kezmiche Atterbury, a Norton spokesperson, said her boss “withdrew her amendment for tactical reasons.”
Informed sources said House Democratic leaders offered those who worked last year to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal the opportunity for an amendment on the floor to eliminate the language in the defense authorization bill related to certification expansion.
However, the five major repeal organizations — the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Third Way, Servicemembers United and the Center for American Progress — agreed to decline the opportunity for the amendment.
According to sources, repeal advocates believed such a amendment would likely fail and could pick up support from moderate House Democrats. A defeat on the House floor, advocates believed, would increase the chances of the Senate adopting the certification expansion language.
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.
Antony Blinken, USAID mark World AIDS Day
India’s Transgender Welfare Boards fail to meet trans people’s basic needs
D.C. holiday theater preview 2024
Comings & Goings
Ring in 2025 with a World Pride party
D.C. Health Link insurance program makes care for people with HIV free
A D.C. AIDS story: ‘I couldn’t have survived without you guys’
LGBTQ federal workers face tough decisions, big worries amid Trump transition
How will Trump impact D.C.’s plans for World Pride?
Will Trump try to rain on World Pride in D.C.?
-
District of Columbia5 days agoD.C. Health Link insurance program makes care for people with HIV free
-
District of Columbia4 days agoA D.C. AIDS story: ‘I couldn’t have survived without you guys’
-
Federal Government5 days agoLGBTQ federal workers face tough decisions, big worries amid Trump transition
-
District of Columbia5 days agoHow will Trump impact D.C.’s plans for World Pride?