Saturday, October 13, 2007

GayCityNews - Pelosi/ HRC ENDA 'Bargain' - The Inside Story

GayCityNews - Pelosi/ HRC ENDA 'Bargain' - The Inside Story

Pelosi/ HRC ENDA 'Bargain' - The Inside Story
By: ANDY HUMM & PAUL SCHINDLER
10/12/2007



Hoping to put a halt to growing divisions over ENDA's scope, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated the Democratic leadership is now prepared to move forward with Barney Frank's trimmed-down version of the bill.

At a late afternoon meeting on October 12 in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, representatives of the Democratic leadership informed key LGBT advocates that it planned to move forward with a vote on a revised version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) covering sexual orientation but not gender identity and expression.

But in what was intended as a concession to leading LGBT organizations who have waged an uphill struggle for more than two weeks to salvage the fully inclusive version of the bill introduced earlier this year, Pelosi pledged to allow a floor vote on that original formulation once advocates indicate they have the votes to secure passage.

It is not at all certain that Pelosi's bargain will be widely accepted.

The plan would involve a hearing next week by the Labor and Education Committee next week and a floor vote the following week.

Advertisement

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which indicated early last week that unlike the preponderance of LGBT groups nationwide, it would not oppose either version of ENDA Democratic leaders decided to move, hailed the outcome of the meeting. The group, in a written release issued at about 7 p.m., said it had "secure[d an] unprecedented commitment" from the speaker, elsewhere terming it a "promise."

"This commitment by the speaker of the House is an unprecedented departure from the usual delays seen in Congress on an issue that has already been considered by the full House," HRC said in its release.

Joe Solmonese, HRC's president, pledged to continue the group's "ramped up" efforts to secure congressional support for employment protections that include the transgender community.

"Now the real work begins," Solmonese said. "We must maintain the momentum we have built up to persist in educating members of Congress and the public about issues facing the transgender community."

Asked how other groups represented at the meeting - including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and the National Stonewall Democrats - viewed the decision reached, Solmonese, in an early evening telephone interview, said, "In no way would I characterize others as embracing this. Ultimately I hope they will come around."

Referring back to a statement he had made nine days earlier to Gay City News, Solmonese conceded that the group's need, as lead lobbyist for the community on Capitol Hill, to always be "an allied partner" with pro-gay members of Congress meant, "We are out of step with the rest of the organizations because of who we are."

The other groups at the Pelosi meeting are among 270 nationwide that have organized under the ad hoc umbrella ENDAUnited.org and pledged to oppose any vote on ENDA that does not include gender protections.

Mara Keisling, executive director of NCTE, the leading gender rights group in the ENDAUnited.org effort, made clear in a phone interview after the Capitol Hill meeting that her group was not backing down. As Matt Foreman, NGLTF's leader, characterized the lobbying push earlier in the week, the "ask" to members of Congress would continue to be that they support a trans-inclusive measure and oppose any other.

Keisling pledged to be back on Capitol Hill Tuesday pressing the fight to have the inclusive version of ENDA be the only one the House votes on.

Asked about the decision to move forward with the sexual orientation-only bill, Keisling challenged the assumption of that question by saying, "The decision has been made that they intend to move ahead. This would be an historic first that they would hold a vote on a piece of civil rights legislation that is not supported by any LGBT or civil rights group" except HRC.

"There is a lot of anger," Keisling continued. "And a lot of disappointment with HRC. There is disappointment with this strategy, but it is not lay-down disappointment. No one has yet been willing to explain why we need to move forward on a bill that has no chance to be passed into law at this time."

In a written statement issued hours after the Pelosi meeting, Foreman said, "We completely disagree with this proposed strategy - it simply makes no sense. If the goal is moving an ENDA that protects all of us, passing a flawed, gay-only bill utterly undermines that objective. The notion that the House of Representatives will be willing to revisit a different ENDA before the end of the calendar year - when it has been unwilling or unable to take up a single pro-gay matter over the last 34 years - is more than implausible. We will do everything possible to convince members to end this misguided course of action."

Throughout the week, Barney Frank, the out gay Massachusetts Democrat who is chief ENDA sponsor and the lawmaker who first pushed to strip the measure of its trans protections, has been sharply critical of advocates urging House members to vote no on a gay rights bill and has also faulted the tenor of their lobbying.

Characterizing the rhetoric of those groups demanding that gender identity be part of the bill as, "How dare you think about doing a partial bill, you've betrayed us," Frank, at an October 11 press conference said, "The anger is very counterproductive and it's going to make it hard to mobilize support in the future."

He argued that Democrats from marginal districts who are brought around to support a gay rights bill cannot then be subjected to criticism from the LGBT community for the political risk they have taken.

"This is a moment of truth as far as I'm concerned for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party," Frank added. "The question is can we govern responsibly?"

He insisted that the House "not allow ourselves to defeat each other by giving the most passionate and involved and engaged groups a veto over any strategy that might make a real advance."

Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), New York's LGBT rights lobby, took issue with Frank's political calculus, saying that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee should not be advising its candidates, especially those facing potential tough races, that they can expect political kudos for taking a tough vote if the bill falls short of what the community is demanding.

"I don't think these folks should be given cover," Van Capelle said, adding that was the message he is giving members of New York's House delegation, four of whom he said he spoke to on Friday.

By week's end, in fact, it appeared that Frank's grip on ENDA leadership among his fellow Democrats was eroding - a dynamic that might have led to a late Friday afternoon meeting in Pelosi's office.

Democratic Congressmen Jerry Nadler, who represents the West Side of Manhattan and portions of Brooklyn, and Rush Holt of Princeton, New Jersey, have now gone public with their opposition to Frank's strategy.

Amy Rutkin, Nadler's out lesbian chief of staff, told Gay City News, "Jerry told people at the Empire State Pride Agenda dinner [Thursday] that if he is unsuccessful in making ENDA fully inclusive, he will vote against it."

Rutkin indicated that Nadler had conveyed his position to Frank, but would not characterize their conversation.

Nadler will be elaborating on his position in an interview with this newspaper on Monday.

Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality wrote in an e-mail that Holt "announced last week that he would vote NO on an ENDA stripped of gender identity, and we expect some other Democrats in our New Jersey Congressional delegation to follow suit."

Frank told Gay City News in a telephone interview Friday that while Holt has taken an explicit stand that "he'll never vote for a bill that doesn't include transgenders," Nadler "is saying he would vote for it, just don't do it now."

Frank characterized Nadler's posture as "holding the Congress to a higher standard than what New York has," where sexual orientation is protected, but not gender identity.

Joe Tarver, ESPA's communications director, said that Nadler's announcement was "very important because it reflects where New York's community is and where much of the community around the country is. His position will be heard by members of the New York delegation and make them think again before voting on a watered-down version. If they believe that a vote for a sexual orientation-only bill will be praised by the community, they need to think again."

Frank said that the Pride Agenda would have more credibility on this issue "if I heard there was a strong push to repeal the New York law and not reinstate it until it included transgenders."

Tarver responded by saying, "It's 2007. Congressman Frank needs to listen to where the community is on this issue now."

Tarver said the Pride Agenda has written to every member of the New York delegation urging them to adopt the Nadler stance and noted Van Capelle's one-on-one conversations. But the group is not releasing a count on where members are at this point.

"We had 20 sponsors of the inclusive ENDA from the New York delegation," he said, "but now that they have other alternatives [because of Frank's proposal], it becomes more difficult to predict."

Asked whether there been any push back from the Pride Agenda's constituency over its stance, Tarver responded, "None."

Frank said he was not surprised that New Yorkers aren't pushing back because "they have their bill. This is not for them. They're already protected."

Congressman Anthony Weiner, a Democrat who represents portions of Brooklyn and Queens, was asked by Gay City News at the ESPA dinner if he will vote against a non-inclusive ENDA and replied, "I think I would, but I hope we don't get to that place. The reason I don't want to stake out a firm line is because I hope we don't get to that place."

Daniel Dromm, an out gay leader from Queens who is a Democratic district leader in the 39th Assembly District, said he had "expressed his concern to Congressman Joseph Crowley" that they want a no vote on a non-inclusive ENDA, but had not heard back. Rohit Mahajan, communications director for Crowley, told Gay City News that the Queens Democrat "is going to support Barney Frank's sexual orientation-only bill" if that is all that comes to the floor.

Brice Peyre from Manhattan/Queens Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney's office said that "she is fully supportive of transgender inclusion," but that she was attending her mother's funeral in Virginia and not reachable.

The LGBT Democratic clubs in New York have been united in pushing House members here to oppose a non-inclusive ENDA. Allen Roskoff, president of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, said of Nadler, "Jerry's commitment to voting no on any bill that does not include the transgender community is a principled position which is to be respected, applauded, and imitated. What Barney Frank is doing is a disgrace and hurtful. He is living in another era."

Transgender activist Melissa Sklarz, a member of the National Stonewall Democrats board, wrote in an e-mail message that she is "thrilled" that "Nadler sees the need to help the LGBT community stay united and fight for justice and equality for all."

Sklarz wrote, "Barney Frank should have worked more openly with us or let us know that this was on the table. No one knew this until two weeks ago, although the professional lobbyists saw this coming in the spring as a possibility."

Foreman praised Nadler for publicly backing their strategy.

"I saw him last night and literally kissed his hand," he said. "This is a bold and courageous stand for full equality that I know he has expressed to Congressman Frank. We appreciate that as well."

Foreman would not say who else in the House has committed to the ENDAUnited.org strategy, but insisted, "We have the votes to pass" a fully inclusive ENDA. He acknowledged that the tougher battle is to make sure ENDA supporters would be willing to stand firm against Republican amendments on the House floor to strip the gender identity provisions from the bill.

That strategy would force a straight up or down vote on transgender rights, one Frank is convinced the community at present would lose. Depending on the specific parliamentary maneuver gay rights opponents take, the result could mean having the bill sent back to committee, effectively killing it for the time being.

Solmonese said that at Friday's meeting the vote count discussion focused not on the number of ayes in favor of a trans-inclusive bill, but rather the number of firm nays to beat back a Republican troublemaking amendment, known as a recommit motion. Those votes are not there, he said.

But Nadine Smith of Equality Florida challenged that conclusion.

"If the inclusive bill were brought forward, we believe a slim majority would support it," she said. "We believe the motion to recommit will fail if the [Democratic] leadership stops sending mixed messages, preaching inclusive language but insisting the votes to support it won't exist."

Florida currently offers no protections in state law for LGBT people.

Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat and the only other out lesbian or gay member of Congress, made clear on October 11 that she thinks the original ENDA with transgender protections should be brought to the floor, even if it means a potentially crippling amendment effort by the GOP.

"Perhaps some of these hostile efforts will be successful," Baldwin said in a written statement. "That should not deter our work. We must bring the strongest possible bill to the floor of the House for a vote. If our adversaries wish to erode protections in the bill, we must be prepared to face that challenge and make our case. However, I believe it is a mistake to concede defeat on any issue, before our opponents even raise it."

She stopped short, however, of urging her colleagues to oppose the trimmed-down Frank version of the bill.

Asked to explain how an activist like Smith, who works in a state with neither a gay rights law nor gender identity protections, is willing to hold out for a fully-inclusive approach to federal legislation rather than going for a quick gay rights gain, Frank responded, "I don't think they speak for their people," adding that "average gay men and lesbians" he speaks to would be very happy with an ENDA that protects them on the basis of sexual orientation if a more inclusive bill is not possible now.

Pelosi's office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.



©GayCityNews 2007

No comments: