Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

House Dems to introduce DADT repeal companion bill, vote expected tomorrow

Don't Ask Don't Tell

By Adam Bink

This morning, Reps. Hoyer and Patrick Murphy announced they would introduce a free-standing companion bill to the Lieberman/Collins stand-alone bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Senate. The bill language would have identical text. In a statement, Rep. Hoyer, the Majority Leader, said:

“Today Rep. Patrick Murphy is introducing a new standalone bill to to allow for repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and I am proud to join him as the lead co-sponsor. As Secretary Gates and others have stressed, it is critical that Congress pass this legislation, empowering the Defense Department to implement repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ itself, rather than have repeal imposed by the Courts,” said Hoyer.

“I look forward to bringing this bill to the House floor soon, and I hope the Senate will swiftly take action as well so that the bill can be signed into law as soon as possible. This discriminatory and harmful policy has weakened America’s security by depriving us of the work of tens of thousands of gay and lesbian troops who have served their country honorably. And it has severely compromised our Armed Forces’ core value of integrity,” concluded Hoyer.

It’s not only good (and expected) news, but it’s good timing. House passage could increase pressure on the Senate to move on repeal to send the bill to the President’s desk. With the other way around, the House would have had to stick around in town while the Senate dealt with matters that didn’t require House action, like the START treaty. This way, the House gets repeal off its plate and then the Senate has one less excuse to not extend the session and move on the bill.

Also, the House leadership announced it will take a vote tomorrow on this bill. We’re going to use the 2nd of two procedures I outlined in my state of play piece– the one that will save time. The House will simply use a bill that has already been passed back and forth between the two houses and add DADT repeal language (recall that the House has already voted in support of DADT repeal directly, straight-up, via the Murphy amendment over the Memorial Day period). This allows us to avoid a motion to proceed vote if we started with a bill from scratch in the Senate, which requires 60 votes and can take up a good chunk of time (30 hours’ time to allow the cloture motion to “mature”). We can thus proceed directly to the bill itself and save a few days in the Senate, which is helpful given the calendar issues. If the Senate passes the House bill and there are no amendments (amendments would require it to be sent back to the House), then it would go to the President’s desk and we win.

Also, as more and more friends and colleagues have asked me what are the chances repeal of the statute will be signed by the President, Rep. Barney Frank tells it like it is (to Metro Weekly):

Of the standalone DADT repeal bill being introduced today in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told Metro Weekly, “There would be no point doing this if there wasn’t a real chance to get this done in the Senate.”

Saying that the effort unveiled by Hoyer today happened only in conjunction with “conversations with the Senate,” Frank said that a “number of Republicans have hidden behind procedure on this” — but that “[t]hose [issues] appear to be getting resolved.

Saying that he was confident in the House’s ability to pass the standalone repeal bill, he added of the Senate chances for passage, “I’d say there’s a better than even chance.”

He’s absolutely right.

We’re still not 100% sure that the 60 pro-repeal Senators will support the stand-alone Lieberman/Collins bill, so let’s keep those calls flowing in. Target list is below.

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): 202-224-6665 (supports repeal, but mixed signals on the stand-alone bill)

George Voinovich (R-OH): 202-224-3353 (no position)

Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 202-224-5344 (no position)

Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202-224-4814 (no position)

Judd Gregg (R-NH): 202-224-3324 (no position)

Scott Brown (R-MA): 202-224-4543 (supports repeal, but has not made a position clear yet on the stand-alone bill)

Kit Bond (R-MO): 202-224-5721 (no position)

Mark Kirk (R-IL): 202-224-2854 (no position)

Joe Manchin (D-WV): 202-224-3954 (no position, but mixed signals on repeal)

After making your calls please leave a quick comment on how it went on this page and in the comments.

As with the Houston Texans’ insane game-winning drives last night that cost my fantasy team a shot at the league championship (damn you Matt Schaub), the ball is moving down the field. Let’s get it into the end zone.


  • 1. Ronnie  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:22 am


  • 2. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:24 am


  • 3. Ann S.  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:40 am


    Repeal the darn thing, already.

  • 4. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I think that's good news,,,,,,, I watched Hoyer on Maddow the other day, and realized he was not one of the co-authoers of the lieberman bill but a definte yes,

    woot woot,,,, to Hoyer and Murphy, if it in fact speeds things up,

    the senators still have a point, if they are told the bill is the same wording, why haven't they released the wording, to clear that hurdle, I would want to read it myself if I was them.. just seems odd that if it's the same, just show it to the public already,,,,,,,,we all know saying it's the same and actually being the same can quite often be two different things…..

  • 5. BK  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Darn senate. All this bickering and stalling! *sigh*

    Looking forward–is there any way, if DADT is repealed, that the new Republican majority Congress can reinstate it? Just curious. :)

  • 6. atty79  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Why isn't Florida's Senator LeMieux on that list of "please call"? He too has stated "no position". It would be good for those in Florida to know they should call, like I've been doing over the last few weeks.

  • 7. Ann S.  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:50 am

    BK, remember who still holds the veto pen. For now, anyway.

  • 8. Sagesse  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:51 am

    One step at a time.

  • 9. anonygrl  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:52 am

    This appears to be the text of the stand alone bill, good for sending to Senators who haven't read it. It is one page long.

  • 10. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:52 am


  • 11. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Hitting the phones again. So grateful for digital telephone service with free nationwide calling. Yes, I can call anywhere in the US and Canada without long distance charges.

  • 12. Ann S.  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:54 am

    For us Cal grads, that is grrrrrrrr-AAAHHHHH!

  • 13. anonygrl  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I'm headed into a meeting for the next two hours. Have fun with this, folks! Go get 'em!!!

  • 14. Don in Texas  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:57 am

    is now available on THOMAS.

  • 15. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:57 am

    I don't think this is a case of intentionally withholding anything. It just hasn't been published at the Library of Congress site, which is where the public usually accesses it. And that is just a matter of it taking time for it to get published there. It usually goes up within a few days of being read on the Senate floor. I think we're only at the second work day since the bill was introduced on the 10th.

  • 16. Steve  |  December 14, 2010 at 3:59 am

    It will pass in the House and die in the Senate. Just like a thousand other bills.

  • 17. Don in Texas  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:00 am


    The text of stand-alone DADT repeal bill S.4022 is now available on THOMAS.

  • 18. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:13 am

    UPDATE in the DOMA cases in the 1st Circuit.
    Don't know if this has been reported, but the 1st Circuit granted the government's request (unopposed by appellees) to consolidate the DOMA cases for purposes of arguing and briefing schedules.

    The new briefing schedule for the cases is:

    First Brief: Federal Appellants' principal brief and appendix are due on or before December 23, 2010;

    Second Brief: Appellee Hara's principal/response and Appellees Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Gill et al's brief must be filed on or before February 8, 2011;

    Third Brief: Federal Appellants' response/reply must be filed on or before March 14, 2011; and

    Fourth Brief: Appellee Hara's reply brief must be filed on or before March 31, 2011.

    You can see the order here:
    And the Motion to Consolidate here:

  • 19. Ann S.  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Thanks for the news! I will be watching this with great interest.

  • 20. JonT  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:28 am

  • 21. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:33 am

    The stand alone bill is now S.4023, though I think the text will be the same. I think these two bills were introduced one day apart so S.4023 text should be available today or tomorrow.

    Btw, the search results at THOMAS are only good for 30 minutes, so the links expire.

  • 22. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:36 am

    dire predicitions Steve, but this is different than those thousand other bills, cause we at P8TT took interest , followed this one, and worked at pushing it , so even if it does die, we can't say we didn't try, and also that we didn't learn a lot from the process….

    this bill is different than the thousands of others,,,it rallied us, and if it fails in Senate, we will work harder because we have joined our effforts, created community, and we will build on that to take it to the courts,

    this bill is unique in it's rallying ability, for human rights, this cause will eventually prevaill……the Senate better pay attention to that, cause they will be responsible for creating problems for the military, if they don't see the value people place on human rights

  • 23. Francis  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:42 am

    I highly doubt it, as the Democrats still have the majority in the Senate, and even if it reinstating it passed the House and the Senate the President still has the power of veto-I don't they could get enough votes to override the veto, even on the minuscule possibility that it passed both the House and Senate in the first place.

    So if the repeal passes, this shouldn't be an issue. However, I'm slightly concerned on the language of the bill itself-it's definitely a huge leap forward but if I remember correctly it gives the military full power to decide when to allow gays to openly serve. It honestly reminds me of when segregation was found to be unconstitutional and schools were told to desegregate "with all due speed" with no specific timetable in place. In the end I do think everything will work out, though-this chain of events has been seen repeated throughout the history of the United States (and many other countries.) I'm an optimist, though. (=

  • 24. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:43 am

    thanks Don, ya original number but love seeing the text, does anyone have an e-mail llist for all senators, would love lto just send it out to all of them…. for starters…….

  • 25. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:44 am

    woot woot atty 79, thanks for calling, and good point…

  • 26. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:48 am

    yup the fateful veto pen,,,, There was a different twist on the news last night, re Obama and his compromiise,,,,, his actions actually did get the dems pissed enough to stand up and fight, and he did put the repubs in an awkward situaiton re baragaing,,,,,,,,maybe he does have those brains after all….

  • 27. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 4:52 am

    I would actually like to know why Richard Burr of NC is not on the list. Even though he has said NO, we still need to flood his office as well. And we really should have a list of those who are already strong on support of repeal so that we can call them and let them know we agree about the repeal. You know, add our strength to theirs to reinforce them.

  • 28. adambink  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I've followed up on LeMieux, and he is highly unlikely to move. The same as Burr.

  • 29. John  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Well, I guess this means I should call my representative, too (a supporter of equal rights, but you can't be too sure these days). So I did and told him that I'm glad this bill will be in the house, and encouraged him to vote yes. I also said that while this bill must pass, I also don't think the problem will be fully solved until they undo DOMA, as otherwise we'll have soldiers worrying about whether or not their spouse has appropriate support at home rather than focusing primarily on the war they are in – so that's something he can do next session.

  • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:13 am

    A message to NOM – Apple did the right thing. So NOM, you can spend all the money you want making 'scary' commercials – it won't change a thing.

  • 31. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:16 am

    hey Richard, hard at em I see, woot woot, I think this short list is a narrowed version of senators tht have a potential to swing to a yes with some convincing……

    but you and atty 79 both raise valid points, and I say go for it on your no senator, give em hell,

    by the way, that's a cool phone package you have even to Canada eh!!! maybe I could send you my # I can call anywhere in Canada but not the states for free……love bJason posting the toll free number,,,,

    what about that list of senators e-mails, would love to shoot them a copy of the text 4022 but I can't find that list of e-mails…..

    also I never did finally wish you and BZ congrats on the wedding,,,,,,hugs to you both…..

  • 32. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Bob, if you have good broadband service, look into Vonage. My package allows free calls to landlines in 50+ countries. There might be other companies that offer similar VOIP services. But they're only practical if you have good, reliable broadband service.

  • 33. Ronnie  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:22 am

    ROFLMGAYAO…..NOM trying to force a privately owned business to bow down to them..& do as they say….apparently NOM are the only ones that are allowed to "censor"….Hypochristians much?….but guess what NOM?….it is not "censorship" it is a business trying to stand by their values & their convictions…..after all…isn't that what you always say?…..FOOLS!!!!……VIVA LA VIE BOHEME!!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 34. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Thanks. Post a comment on the blog (click my name) and I will email you so you can do that.

  • 35. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Skype is also good, but again, you really need to have reliable internet service. But with skype, you can also place video calls.

  • 36. Bob  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Kathleen, just sent Liebermans e-mail , to you , the text of 4023 cheers Bob

  • 37. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Bob obtained this from Lieberman's office

    Text of S.4023 ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010’’

    Thanks, Bob!!

  • 38. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:35 am

    I didn't realize Skype allows for free landline calls to people who don't have computer or internet service. I thought it was strictly computer to computer. Obviously, I don't use it or I would have know that. :)

  • 39. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Bob, posted link to Scribd below.

  • 40. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Thanks, Bob and Kathleen!

  • 41. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:40 am

    It is only computer to computer. Sorry for the confusion, Kathleen. But the fact that it is computer to computer makes a dependable internet connection an absolute must! And if you want to do video calls, you have to have a webcam. But it is a great way to talk with people who are outside of the free zone on the telephone.

  • 42. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:42 am

    No, you can use Skype to call phones (both landlines and cell phones). If you don't have a subscription it's 2.3¢ per minute, much cheaper though if you have a subscription.

  • 43. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:45 am

    I even have skype installed on my cell phone.

  • 44. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:54 am


  • 45. Freddy/Lar  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Bob, try this one, it lists the Governors, Senators and Reps for all 50 or so states.

  • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 14, 2010 at 6:01 am

    This is great…

    New bill may bring gay history education to the classrooms in California

    Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill (SB 48) yesterday, sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network, aimed to stop discriminatory education and promote school safety. The bill is called the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act, and would prohibit discriminatory education and ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are fairly and accurately included in instructional materials. The bill would also prohibit the State Board of Education from adopting instructional materials that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The FAIR Education Act would bring classroom instruction into alignment with existing non-discrimination laws in California and would add LGBT to the existing list of underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. Sponsors of the bill believe that including fair and accurate information about LGBT people and history in instructional materials will improve student safety, reduce bullying, enrich the learning experiences of all students, and promote an atmosphere of safety and respect in California schools.


  • 47. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 14, 2010 at 6:24 am

    General Amos admits that his Marines are an undisciplined basket of lust kittens

    Has Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos just come out for the whole Marine Corps? Why else would he be wiling to imply that the soldiers under his command are so inept and undisciplined that they'd become distracted by the outness of gay fellow soldiers unless he believes they harbor uncontrollable homolust? Or is this more about the General's alleged BDSM fantasies? Maybe he wants to see how bad he has to be before his Commander in Chief disciplines him. (Don't hold your breath on that one General, unless holding your breath is part of what gets you off.) Here is what he said earlier today about the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

    "When your life hangs on a line, on the intuitive behavior of the young man… who sits to your right and your left, you don't want anything distracting you," Amos told reporters at the Pentagon.

    "I don't want to lose any Marines to distraction. I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (hospital) with no legs," he said.

    He added that "mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives. That's the currency of this fight."


  • 48. Freddy/Lar  |  December 14, 2010 at 6:33 am

    LLB, I think General James Cartwright needs to pull mr. Amos off to the side and order him to start acting like a proper Marine or get out, I would like to see Cartwright in that position even though it would be considered a demotion. Seems like GEN Cartwright is more capable of running the Marine Corps than the current Commandant

  • 49. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 6:47 am

    And with these comments, General Amos has once again insulted the memory of my first husband, who served in country during Vietnam with the USMC, as well as the memory of the unit he served with.

  • 50. Rhie  |  December 14, 2010 at 6:47 am


  • 51. Freddy/Lar  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:17 am

    At the rate amos is going, he is going to end up like peter pace or stanley mcchrystal, going down in flames because they let their mouth get in the way of their job.

  • 52. atty79  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:19 am

    We need to put particular emphasis on those senators that are 'unlikely' to move. These will be the senators in many years who'll be looked back upon as continuing discrimination in the face of common sense to the contrary.

    What's worse, at least in LeMieux's case, is the ambivalence. These senators need to be posted, loudly, as being pansies…unable to lead or make decisions when the going gets tough. These senators are the ones who hide rather than stand by their discriminating base.

    I'm reminded of one of my commercial airport tenants I used to manage. He told me that even though I told him "no" quite a bit, I was consistent, upfront, and reasonable. It at least gave him foreknowledge of how to approach me.

    Senators like LeMieux are hiding behind "no position" as if it is a position, and people need to know about it. They are worse than McCain. At least with McCain, we know where he's coming from–totally off base, but at least we know.

    These senators might not get us votes, but they shouldn't be given a pass.

  • 53. Tim in Sonoma  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:23 am

    I called everyone of the Senators. The real people I talked to thanked me for calling and they would pass my opinion along to the Senator.
    I tried three times to call Senator Voinovich's office and recieved a busy signal each time.
    Senator Manchin's voicemail was full I'll try them again.

  • 54. atty79  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:24 am


    After watching this, I honestly had to think for a second. Is this a parody? Some bad SNL skit?

    Oh no, no no no. It's real.

    The same groups whining to make sure THEY have the right to censor (and discriminate) are now belittling other groups for doing the same.

    Oh, this just keeps getting better.

  • 55. Tim in Sonoma  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:31 am

    I recieved an email from Brian, his panties are all in a bunch.
    His email which included a form letter to Steve denouncing his decision to remove the app,well, I hijacked it.
    I highlighted and deleted the parts I don't like(which was most of it) and edited it by entering my own text turning the letter into a Thank You letter instead! (sneaky I know). hehe

  • 56. Kathleen  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:46 am

    I like having them waste their money on ads like this. if they're not going to put their money to good use — like actually helping people in need — then at least expenditures like this help empty their coffers with no real harm done.

  • 57. Sheryl Carver  |  December 14, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Unfortunately, Obama's reaction to Amos' public undermining of his Commander-in-Chief might lead a person to think Amos is Obama's boss instead of the other way around. Obama does not appear to have any real executive or leadership ability at all. He looks presidential, he sounds presidential, but he acts like a 13 year old first-time babysitter who will do anything to keep her charges pacified until their parents return.

    I feel like I voted for a complete incompetent or a Republican in Democratic clothing.

  • 58. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 14, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Can we really be that fortunate?

  • 59. Evelyn J. Brooks  |  December 14, 2010 at 11:41 am

    NOM is going to have an ever-loving field day with this bit of news. I'd love to see this come to fruition but I'm calling it now: It's not gonna happen.

  • 60. Ann S.  |  December 14, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Evelyn, I'd take that bet. The CA legislature twice passed marriage equality laws, only to have them vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Made Harvey Milk day an official holiday.

    Stranger things have happened. Yes, NOM will have a field day. Too bad for them.

  • 61. Barney Frank sums it up r&hellip  |  December 14, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    […] some say they haven’t even read the text yet- so let’s keep the calls up. The list is here, and we’ve even got phone numbers for you. Ask them to support the Lieberman/Collins […]

  • 62. Meagan  |  December 15, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Voinovich's is always busy–you just have to keep trying. Sometimes for hours. I honestly believe they only have one working phone in the entire place..

    The plus side, though, is that I've never had to leave a voicemail message. If your call goes through, you'll talk to someone.

  • 63. Kathlene  |  December 15, 2010 at 10:40 am

    This deserves it's own post.

  • 64. Kathlene  |  December 15, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Not to be snarky, but from the looks of that ad, they didn't spend too much money on it.

  • 65. Kathleen  |  December 15, 2010 at 10:49 am


    I'm sure there will be one when the first brief is filed.

    BTW, I wonder how many people have noticed that there's a "Kathlene' here as well as a "Kathleen." Every time I see one of your posts, it take me a minute to make sense of why I don't remember having said that. :)

  • 66. Ann S.  |  December 15, 2010 at 11:28 am


    I did notice that, too, and I have to check the spelling carefully to see who's posting.

    Then there's Carpool Cookie, who, IIRC, is also named Kathleen.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  December 15, 2010 at 11:32 am

    The other way to tell the difference is that my name is a hyperlink (to my facebook page). So far, at least, Kathlene hasn't associated her name with a link.

    We also have 415katheen.

  • 68. Ann S.  |  December 15, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Oh, yes, I did not mean to leave out 415kathleen.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!