Congress
Partisan disagreements imperil efforts to redress harms of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Challenges come despite bipartisan interest in addressing the problem
Despite bipartisan agreement over the need to bring justice to U.S. service members who were harmed by discriminatory military policies like āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā competing legislative efforts have divided members of Congress and sparked accusations that both Democrats and Republicans are āplaying politicsā with the issue.
Following the repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā in 2011, thousands of veterans who were discharged other than honorably over their sexual orientation continue to face barriers finding housing and employment, with many unable to access federal benefits that otherwise would be available to them.
The Pentagon has endeavored to address the problem, but advocates say the agency has been too slow to act while service members, rather than the Department, bear the considerable burden of requesting reviews of their papers ā a process so complicated that many have had to seek legal counsel for help navigating the bureaucratic red tape.
Gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, has long worked to address the challenges faced by veterans who are in this position with his Restore Honor to Service Members Act, which he first introduced in 2013 and re-introduced several times over the years, most recently in 2023.
Among the subsequent iterations were the bicameral version introduced in 2019 by Pocan and U.S. Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) along with U.S. Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and another that was introduced in the Senate last year by Schatz, which was backed by Republican U.S. Sens. Todd Young (Ind.) and Susan Collins (Maine).
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2024 was passed in the Senate with provisions taken from the Restore Honor to Service Members Act, including directions for the Pentagon to establish a “Tiger Team” to “build awareness among veterans of the process established [by the NDAA in FY 2020] for the review of discharge characterizations by appropriate discharge boards.”
Pocan, along with caucus co-chairs U.S. Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), wrote to U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin last month to request information to facilitate implementation of the departmentās decision to (1) review records for service members who were discharged under āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā (2) forward cases to their respective secretaries to consider correction through the service boards, and (3) reach out to veterans to make sure they are kept up to speed throughout the process.
Last week, however, another bill targeting the same issue, the Recover Pride in Service Act, was announced by Republican U.S. Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.) in conjunction with Log Cabin Republicans, the conservative LGBT group.
A spokesperson for the congresswoman told the Washington Blade in a statement, āThereās a significant difference between the two bills. The Recover Pride in Service Act requires the Department of Defense to automatically upgrade all discharges that were solely based on sexual orientation within five years.ā
The spokesperson continued, āThis key provision would ensure veterans adversely impacted by Donāt Ask, Donāt Tell wonāt have to endure an arduous and costly application process and can get their status updated without having to lift a finger. I would also note that just 10 percent of LGBTQ+ veterans have had their discharges upgraded, and thatās because of the application process. Only requiring an outreach group isnāt enough.ā
The Recover Pride in Service Act would also, per the press release announcement, establish an “Outreach Unit” to contact service members who were discharged for their sexual orientation along with other reasons specified in their papers. The bill promises to simplify administrative requirements and includes a provision stipulating that “a lack of documentation cannot be used as a basis for denying a review, and the responsibility of finding and producing relevant documentation lies with the DOD, not the service member.”
āIf Republicans truly cared about helping veterans discharged under āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā they would have signed on to the Restore Honor to Service Members Act, which has been around for a decade and has support among the broader LGBTQI+ community,ā Pocan told the Blade in a statement.
āInstead, they introduced a bill that plays partisan politics with the issue rather than advance it,ā he said. āIf we really want to do something to help veterans, there is a decade-long effort to get that done. Posing for pictures with a duplicative effort doesnāt get us closer to the goal.ā
Log Cabin Republicans Senior Advisor Alex Walton told the Blade by phone last week that ādiscussions about the Restore Honor to Service Members Act all happened close to eight to nine months ago before we kind of shifted focus when we realized that they werenāt going to cooperate and work with us.ā
Walton said that while there was significant interest in joining Pocan’s bill among House Republicans, “they were only going to do it assuming that Democrats were going to match the number of Republicans that co-sponsored the legislation, so you didn’t have 150 Democrats and, you know, 12 Republicans.” A source familiar with the discussions said Pocan was never asked to limit the number of Democratic cosponsors.
Additionally, Walton said, the House Republicans “also wanted a Republican lead,” but Pocan “was unwilling to let that happen.”
Months later, Walton said Pocan and House Democrats remained uncooperative in discussions over the Recover Pride in Service Act, the bill that was ultimately introduced by Chavez-DeRemer.
Meanwhile, he said, “We spoke to over 90 Republican offices, both in the House and the Senate, and we had a lot of conversations about this issue in general. And one of the things that we kept hearing from Republican offices is if a piece of legislation like this is going to pass, you’re gonna have to cut bureaucratic extras that are included in the Pocan version of the bill, and you’re just gonna have to get directly to the problem. And that’s what the legislation does by requiring the DOD to proactively upgrade these discharges.”
With Republicans holding the majority in the House, Walton said, Log Cabin and Republican members wanted a Republican lead sponsor on the bill in the lower chamber, while discussions were held with Senate Democrats with the expectation that a Democrat would be lead sponsor of the Senate version of the Recover Pride in Service Act.
Walton added that Pocan was offered the opportunity to be the lead Democratic member in the House ā a claim that is disputed by the source familiar with the talks, who said the Wisconsin congressman was not consulted as the Recover Pride in Service Act was being drafted.
Pocan told the Blade, in a separate statement, that āIāve had the Restore Honor to Service Members Act available for co-sponsorship for 12 years. Unfortunately, only a few Republicans have been interested in signing on. I welcome additional support. The best way to help our wrongly discharged veterans is to work in a bipartisan fashion with the members whoāve been working on this for a decade.ā
He added, āIāve been focused on getting justice for veterans discharged under āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā for years, which is why part of the Restore Honor to Service Members Act became law several years ago” with the NDAA. “Losing the majority doesnāt mean I should surrender the rest of my bill āthatās not how Congress works. But I do welcome any support from Republicans who havenāt drunk the anti-equality Kool-Aid.”
Walton said that by refusing to work with Republicans in good faith, āPocan put himself over all of these veterans,” adding, āIām not disregarding everything Pocan has done for gays and lesbians in Congress. But the reality is that he put himself and his own pride in this legislation over actually getting stuff done.ā
Walton stressed the broad ideological base of support for Chavez-DeRemerās bill among House Republicans, 13 of whom have signed on as co-sponsors. Along with more moderate members, āwe have extremely conservative Republicans on this legislation,ā he said.
Those co-sponsoring members are GOP Reps. Kat Cammack (Fla.), Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.), Anthony D’Esposito (N.Y.) Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.), Nancy Mace (S.C.), Derrick Van Orden (Wis.), Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Ken Calvert (Calif.), John Duarte (Calif.), Mark Amodei (Nev.), Mike Turner (Ohio), Max Miller (Ohio), and Mike Carey (Ohio).
Several of these House Republicans have voted for anti-LGBTQ military policies, such as prohibitions on Pride month celebrations at U.S. military bases and provisions allowing employees at the Defense Department and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to discriminate against LGBTQ service members if they oppose, for instance, same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
House must pass spending bills by Friday
Meanwhile, House Republicans have held up passage of critical spending bills by insisting on conservative policy mandates that stand no chance of passing in the Senate with Democrats in the majority, nor of being signed into law by President Joe Biden.
If they are not able to reach an agreement by Friday, funding will lapse for military construction, agriculture, transportation, and housing programs. A full government shutdown would be triggered if spending packages are not passed by March 8.
The Equality Caucus, in a post on X Monday, said, āJust a reminder as we barrel towards a gov’t shutdown this week: House Republicansā partisan funding bills include more than 45 provisions attacking the LGBTQI+ community.ā
They added, āThe House GOP needs to stop playing games with queer people’s rights & agree to bipartisan funding bills.ā
Historically, appropriations packages have been cleared by both chambers with wide bipartisan margins.
During a conference call on Friday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) told GOP members they were unlikely to see many of their policy priorities included in the spending bills. He met with Biden at the White House on Tuesday, alongside other congressional leaders including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), to continue negotiations ahead of Fridayās deadline.
Congress
Lawmakers champion drug policy reforms at National Cannabis Policy Summit
Congressional leaders pledged their support for decriminalization
Speaking at the 2024 National Cannabis Policy Summit on Wednesday, congressional leaders pledged their support for proposals to remedy the harms of America’s War on Drugs while protecting cannabis users and cannabis businesses that are operating under a fast-evolving patchwork of local, state, and federal laws.
Overwhelmingly, the lawmakers who attended the conference at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library in D.C. or delivered their remarks virtually were optimistic about the chances of passing legislative solutions in the near-term, perhaps even in this Congress.
Participants included U.S. Sens. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with U.S. Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and was honored at the event with the Supernova Women Cannabis Champion Lifetime Achievement Award. Republicans included an aide for U.S. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) who was featured in an afternoon panel discussion about the cannabis policy landscape on Capitol Hill.
Each of the members have long championed cannabis-related policy reforms, from Merkleyās SAFER Banking Act that would allow cannabis businesses to access financial services (thereby affording them the critically important protections provided by banks) to Leeās work throughout her career to ameliorate the harms suffered by, particularly, Black and Brown communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of marijuana and the consequences of systemic racism in law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
The lawmakers agreed America is now at an inflection point. Democratic and Republican leaders are coming together to support major drug policy reforms around cannabis, they said. And now that 40 states and D.C. have legalized the drug for recreational or medical use, or both, the congress members stressed that the time is now for action at the federal level.
Last summer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a formal request to re-categorize marijuana as a Schedule III substance under the rules and regulations of the Controlled Substances Act, which kicked off an ongoing review by the Biden-Harris administration. Since the lawās enactment in 1971, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I substance and, therefore, has been subject to the most stringent restrictions on and criminal penalties for its cultivation, possession, sale, and distribution.
Merkley acknowledged that re-scheduling would remedy the Nixon administrationās ābizarreā decision to house marijuana under the same scheduling designation as far more harmful and addictive drugs like heroin ā and noted that the move would also effectively legalize biomedical research involving cannabis. However, the senator said, while re-scheduling āmay be a step in the right direction, itās not de-schedulingā and therefore would not make real inroads toward redressing the harms wrought by decades of criminalization. Ā
Likewise, as she accepted her award, Lee specified that she and her colleagues are āworking night and day on the legalization, not re-scheduling.ā And her comments were echoed by Warren, who proclaimed in a prerecorded video address that āde-scheduling and legalizing cannabis is an issue of justice.ā
Congressional Republicans have blocked legislation to legalize marijuana, the Massachusetts senator said, āand that is why the scheduling is so important,ā as it might constitute a ātool that we can use to get this done without Republican obstruction.ā
Warren, Merkley, and Schumer were among the 12 Senate Democrats who issued a letter in January to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting transparency into its re-scheduling process while also, more importantly, demanding that the agency fully de-schedule cannabis, which would mean the drug is no longer covered by the Controlled Substances Act.
However, in a possible signal of political headwinds against these efforts, their Republican colleagues led by U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) responded with a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram āhighlighting concerns over HHSās recommendation to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to Schedule III-controlled substance.ā The GOP signatories, all of whom serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sought to āunderscore the Drug Enforcement Administrationās (DEA) duty under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to ensure compliance with the United Statesā treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.ā
As Norton noted during her prepared remarks, elected Democrats are not necessarily always on the same page with respect to expanding access to economic opportunity facilitated by cannabis. For instance, though President Joe Biden had promised, during his State of the Union address this year, to direct his āCabinet to review the federal classification of marijuana, and [expunge] thousands of convictions for mere possession,ā Norton blamed Biden along with House Republicans for provisions in the federal budget this year that prohibit D.C. from using local tax dollars to legalize cannabis sales.
A non-voting delegate who represents the cityās 690,000 residents in the House, Norton called the presidentās position ādeeply disappointing,ā particularly considering his record of supporting āD.C. statehood, which would allow D.C. to enact its own policies without congressional interferenceā and grant its residents voting representation in both chambers of Congress. She added that the majority of Washingtonians are Black and Brown while all are held responsible for āthe obligations of citizenship including paying federal taxes.ā
Norton said the city should also have the power to grant clemency for crimes committed in the District, including cannabis-related crimes ā power that, currently, can only be exercised by the president.
Some Republican lawmakers have been at the forefront of efforts to reform harmful cannabis regulations. For instance, a participant in a mid-afternoon panel pointed to the CURE Act, a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) that would prohibit the federal government from denying security clearances based on applicantsā past or current use of cannabis.
While securing statehood for D.C. and de-scheduling cannabis via legislation or administrative action are perhaps, at least for now, a heavy lift, Merkley pointed to promising new developments concerning his SAFER Banking Act.
The Oregon senator first introduced the measure, then titled the SAFE Banking Act, in 2019, and he said the legislationās evolution into its current iteration was difficult. āRegulators donāt want to be told what to do,ā Merkley said, and negotiations with these officials involved ānitty-gritty arguments over every word.ā
Pushback also came from one of Merkleyās Democratic colleagues. In September, Warnock, who is Georgiaās first Black U.S. senator, voted ānoā on the 2023 version of the SAFER Banking Act, writing: āMy fear is that if we pass this legislation, if we greenlight this new industry and the fees and the profits to be made off of it without helping those communitiesā most harmed by the War on Drugs āwe will just make the comfortable more comfortable.ā
Warnockās statement followed his pointed remarks expressing concerns with the legislation during a Senate Banking Committee hearing.
āLet me be very clear,ā he said, āI am not opposed to easing or undoing federal restrictions around cannabis. And I would support all of the provisions and reforms in this legislation if paired with broader cannabis reforms that substantively address the issue of restorative justice. This bill does not do that.ā
At this point, however, the latest version of the SAFER Banking Act has advanced out of committee and earned the support of Senate leaders including Schumer and much of the Republican conference.
āThis is the moment,ā he said. āLetās not let this year pass without getting this bill ā the safer banking bill ā through the House, through the Senate, and on the presidentās desk.ā
In her remarks, Lee also discussed the importance of business and industry-wide reforms like those in Merkleyās bill.
āWe have to make sure that the cannabis industry is viewed by everyone, especially our federal government, as a legitimate business,ā Lee said. āLegitimate, which deserves every single aspect of financial services that any legitimate business deserves and has access to.ā
Like Warnock, the congresswoman also highlighted how these financial and business considerations intersect with āequity issues,ā as āthose who have been most impacted by this horrible War on Drugsā must ābecome first in line for the businesses and for the jobs and for the economic opportunity the cannabis industry provides.ā
Reflecting on her experience introducing the Marijuana Justice Act in 2019, which was Congressās first racial justice cannabis reform bill, Lee remembered how āeveryone was like, āwhy are you doing this? Itās politically not cool.āā Her legislation sought to end the federal criminalization of marijuana, expunge the criminal records of those convicted of cannabis-related crimes, and reinvest in communities that have suffered disproportionately from the War on Drugs.
The congresswoman said she explained to colleagues how the bill addressed āmany, many layersā of often-intersecting problems linked to federal cannabis policy, telling them: āThis is a criminal justice issue, a racial justice issue, an issue of equity, a medical issue, a veteransā issue, and an issue of economic security.ā
Two years later, with a 220-204 vote, the House successfully passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, a comprehensive bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and to the Senate by then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The measure included Leeās Marijuana Justice Act.
āThis bill is the product of many, many years of advocacy for federal cannabis reform and equity,ā she said in a statement celebrating the billās passage. āMake no mistake: This is a racial justice bill. Itās about the thousands of people of color who sit in jail for marijuana offenses while others profit. Itās about finally repairing the harms of the War on Drugs on communities and families across the country.ā
āWe’ve come a long way,ā she told the audience on Wednesday. āAnd now we have a long way to go.ā
Congress
House passes spending bill as Greene threatens to oust Johnson
51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ riders were defeated
The U.S. House of Representatives averted a government shutdown on Friday with a vote of 286-134 to pass the $1.2 trillion spending bill, over the objections of hard-right members like U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
The congresswoman subsequently filed a motion to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is himself an ultraconservative legislator. The move marked the second time in six months that the party has called for a vote to oust their own leader.
āToday I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,ā said Greene, who refused to say whether she would call up the resolution to call for a snap vote, which likely means the matter will be delayed until after the two-week recess.
Greene and Johnson are at odds over the content of the minibus appropriations package, with the congresswoman calling it a “Chuck Schumer, Democrat-controlled bill” that does not contain conservative policy demands on matters like immigration and LGBTQ issues.
The speaker, meanwhile, proclaimed, āHouse Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense.ā
With respect to anti-LGBTQ riders submitted by Republican members, more than 50 were ultimately stripped from the bill, which the Human Rights Campaign celebrated as “a victory,” crediting lawmakers for their “bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.”
Of the 52 anti-LGBTQ riders, only one survived in the $1.2 trillion package passed on Friday: A ban on flying Pride flags at U.S. embassies.
Congress
Massive defeat for anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ riders in spending bill
Proposal has only one rider that would target community
On Thursday, Congress unveiled the much-anticipated spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The bill, which includes funding for major government departments such as Health and Human Services and Education, featured fierce negotiations over conservative āpolicy riders.ā
These policy riders included bans on coverage for gender-affirming care, DEI bans, sports bans and more. Despite some indications that Democrats might compromise due to the sheer number of conservative policy riders, it appears those fears did not come to fruition. Democrats held firm in negotiations, and the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders were nowhere to be found.
One policy rider proposed for the Food and Drug Administration would have defunded any hospital that ādistributes, sells or otherwise uses drugs that disrupt the onset of puberty or sexual development for those under 18,ā a measure targeting not only transgender youth but also those experiencing precocious puberty.
Another rider sought to bar any government funding toward āsurgical procedures or hormone therapy for the purposes of gender-affirming careā in the Department of Health and Human Services. This move would have significantly impacted private and subsidized insurance in the Healthcare Marketplace. It also aimed to bar the enforcement of President Joe Bidenās executive order titled āPreventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity,ā which broadened anti-discrimination protections for trans individuals.
Additional riders included bans on funding for any organization thatĀ āpromotes transgenderism,āĀ Title IX protections for trans youth, bans on legal challenges against states over anti-LGBTQ+ laws, book bans, DEI bans and more.
In total, over 40 riders were proposed and negotiated in the spending bills. None of these were found in the final bill.
Ultimately, the final spending bill released contained only a single anti-LGBTQ rider: A ban on Pride flags being raised or displayed above foreign embassies. The policy, while certainly qualifying as anti-LGBTQ and a regression to Trump-era policies, notably does not bar personal displays of Pride flags by embassy workers.
In the past, some embassies have gotten around such bans by not āflying a flag over the embassyā but rather, painting portions of the embassy in rainbow colors or draping flags on the side of buildings.
News of the defeat of the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ riders comes after a significant push from Equality Caucus Democrats and the Biden administration against the riders. āAs you negotiate government funding for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24), we write to strongly urge you to reject any attempts to include anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in any final FY24 funding agreement,ā said a letter signed by 163 representatives on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus to the Biden administration.
However, Republicans also pushed hard for their inclusion. In a shutdown threat issued Feb. 21 from the House Freedom Caucus, Republicans indicated that bans on gender affirming care and trans participation in sports were necessary to prevent a potential shutdown.
Previously, U.S. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) stated that such bans are the “hill we will die on.” In a report published by Axios, one Republican lawmaker stated, āPeople are predicting a shutdown even if it’s just for a few days.ā Others concurred, citing gender affirming care riders as one of the potential reasons for such a shutdown.
Many anti-LGBTQ leaders in the Republican Party reacted negatively to the bill. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)Ā expressed angerĀ at funding for the New Jersey Garden State Equality in Education Fund, calling it āforce feeding the LGBT agenda in schoolsā and stating that it enables āgender mutilation surgeries in minors,ā ābiological menā in womenās bathrooms and trans participation in sports.
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) decried the lack of a DEI ban. U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) stated that Republicans āsurrenderedā to Democrats on hormone therapy. The House Freedom Caucus published a lengthy list of healthcare and equality centers that the budget would fund, urging the GOP to vote ānoā and to shut down the government.
In a press release published by House Appropriations Democrats, they stated that the bill rejected over a hundred poison-pill riders, many of which targeted LGBTQ people. For example, the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the bill blocked provisions around gender affirming care, sports bans and nondiscrimination.
See the House Appropriations Democrats statement:
The bill must pass by Friday evening to avert a government shutdown, though the impacts of such a shutdown would likely not be felt until Monday. If passed, the bill would keep the government funded through September, at which point all of the riders could resurface during the peak of the 2024 presidential election.
However, for the next several months, LGBTQ riders will not pose a significant threat in a year where trans and queer individuals have faced attacks at historic levels.
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.