I was on a call this afternoon with SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis, who gave some updates on where this is going. SLDN is the same organization with which OpenLeft and over 30 other blogs have been partnering in the "open letters to the President" campaign.
Both Rep. Patrick Murphy and SLDN are convinced the votes are there on the floor of the House for repeal. But, given House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton's opposition to repeal and the makeup of the committee, advocates, including the supportive House leadership, are intentionally avoiding a vote in that committee on the defense authorization bill and instead going to vote on the floor. According to Sarvis, Skelton has agreed to this deal with the Dem caucus and the leadership. After passage of the bill out of committee, the Rules Committee will directed to report out a rule allowing for such an amendment, which Rep. Murphy and Rep. Susan Davis of CA will then offer on the floor of the House, and it is expected to pass.
The House floor vote is likely to take place on either Thursday, May 27 or Friday, May 28.
In the Senate, we are still short in committee, and unlike the House, we need a good bill to come out of committee, as trying to amend the bill on the floor to repeal DADT is unlikely to be successful. I asked Sarvis if the six targets- Bayh, Brown, Byrd, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE) and Webb- are still live rounds. He said that they were. Webb is the most difficult thus far.
On Thursday, May 27, there is expected to be a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Sen. Levin, who is a supporter. Levin is expected to do one-on-one lobbying with each member of the committee who is not a co-sponsor to repeal DADT as that time approaches. If all 28 members show up, we would need 15 votes. Again, we are still short the votes, and Sarvis emphasized, as do I, that calls, e-mails, and hand-written letters from constituents are still key. So take a look at that list again and share with folks who are constituents, straight or LGBT.
The Senate Armed Services Committee will intentionally vote first on repeal, at which point the House is extremely likely to use their language with regard to end date/implementation and so forth. The rationale, according to Sarvis is "we want to leave as little daylight as possible between the House and Senate conferees on Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The point is that conference will still be a hurdle if the issue is resolved by what he calls "The Big 4" e.g. the chairmen and ranking members of the two committees. Such a scenario would not be good for our side so we want as much agreement as possible prior to entering conference.
I asked Sarvis what are our chances if we lose in the Senate Armed Services Committee and he said:
In all candor, that would be very tough. We would have a losing vote in committee and the scenario where someone offers a repeal amendment on the floor would invite a filibuster and not only would we need 51 votes on the substance, we would need 60 votes for the amendment to be laid down and considered. That's why I went into the scenario to get the language in the bill in committee, because then someone would need 51 votes to strike it.
If we won in the House, we would be alive in conference, but it would be very tough in conference with a losing vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
So again, Bayh, Brown, Byrd, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), and Webb are critical targets. Hit your contact lists. Losing that vote would be a serious blow.
On the issue of the White House/DOD sending a language transmission in support of repeal, Sarvis called that extremely unlikely given the language of the Gates letter:
It's unlikely we're going to see a transmittal in the next few days that includes repeal... most of the subcommittees closed down the transmittal process already. Yes, technically, the White House and DOD could send up a transmittal at any time, even after the vote. I don't think it's likely we'll see a transmittal especially in light of the Secretary's letter. Think about it- you don't send that kind of letter and then send up that kind of transmittal. Would I like to be wrong? You betcha. Am I looking for it? No way."
There is still time, and the White House could send up such language at any time, but I agree it's less likely.
So the bottom line is things are moving but a lot of Democrats are not there yet, and one Republican (Scott Brown). Please remind your friends who are constituents to drop them a line. We need those votes.
STATE BLOGS
