Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 36

Guest column by Irene Monroe: In "Hot-lanta" you stay "in the closet" as CNN's Don Lemon did

In "Hot-lanta" you stay "in the closet" as CNN's Don Lemon did

By Rev. Irene Monroe

CNN's Don Lemon has penned a memoir titled "Transparent" that will come out in September. In writing his book, Lemon said "the decision to come out happened organically."

One of the motivating reasons for Lemon, 45, now revealing his sexual orientation is because of the suicide of 18-year-old Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi. Clementi, if your remember, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge after finding out that his college roommate and another classmate used a webcam to secretly broadcast his sexual encounters with another male, highlighting the dangers of "cyberbullying" -- teasing, harassing, or intimidating with pictures or words distributed online or via text message. Clementi's suicide along with the other eight lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth and young adults went viral in September 2010 and they saturated the media.

In this era of acceptance of LGBTQ people in news broadcasting like Lemon's colleague Anderson Cooper, ABC's Good Morning America weather anchor Sam Champion, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and her colleague Thomas Roberts, to name a few, one would wonder about the source of the media brouhaha with Lemon's disclosure, especially since it was not secret at work about his sexual orientation.

"It's quite different for an African-American male," Lemon told Joy Behar on her HLN show. "It's about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You're taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away."

And Lemon is right. With homophobia running as rampant in historically black colleges and universities as it is in black communities, there are no safe places for GBTQ brothers of African descent to safely acknowledge their sexuality or to openly engage the subject of black GBTQ sexualities.

"I was born gay, just as I was born black," Lemon told Behar.

But black GBTQ sexualities within African American culture are perceived to further threaten not only black male heterosexuality, but also the ontology of blackness itself.

With certain aspects of hip-hop culture displaying a hyper-masculinity, this male-dominated genre is aesthetically built on the most misogynistic and homophobic strains of Black Nationalism and afrocentricism.

Lemon courageously goes on to explain to Behar another reason why it took him so long to come out.

"And our community is steeped in religion, with the church preaching against homosexuality. I prayed a lot growing up that I would change, that I would be straight," he said. "But no matter how good I was, how much I prayed and denied what I was, it [being gay] was always there."

According to the PEW Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, 87 percent of African Americans identify with a religious group and 79 percent say that religion is very important in their lives. The Pew report also showed that since 2008, African-American Protestants are less likely than other Protestant groups to believe that LGBTQ people should have equal rights. And since hot-button issues like gay adoption and marriage equality have become more prominent, support for LGBTQ rights among African-American Protestants has dipped as low as 40 percent.

A groundbreaking study in July 2010 came out titled "Black Lesbians Matter" examining the unique experiences, perspectives, and priorities of the Black Lesbian Bisexual and Trans community. One of the key findings of the survey revealed that there is a pattern of higher suicide rates among black LBTs. Scholars have primarily associated these higher suicide rates with one's inability to deal with "coming out" and the Black Church's stance on homosexuality.

With the "No Hope Baptist Church of God and Christ" and the "Apostolic Church of Hell" standing front and center in our black communities espousing religion-based bigotry as the word of God, these places of worship are the reasons why Lemon -- and we as an African American community -- can't tell the truth about our sexuality.

It's because African Americans don't address the homophobic role the Black church plays in creating a "down-low" (DL) culture -- not only among its worshippers but also among its "down low" ministers who espouse damning messages about homosexuality -- that both Bishop Eddie Long and Pastor Donnie McClurkin can tell their truths.

Pastor Donnie McClurkin, the poster boy for African American ex-gay ministries "testi-lies" that his homosexuality is from being raped; thus confusing same-gender sexual violence with homosexuality. Bishop Eddie Long, one of the Black Church's prominent pastors of "prosperity gospel" and "bling-bling" theology "testi-lies" that the pubescent boys he nurtured were "spiritual sons" rather than what many of us perceived as one of his many lies stashed in his stained-glass closet.

Lemon resides in Atlanta, and it's not the old Atlanta of MLK days. It's the new black Mecca and the new "Black Hollywood" that it's fondly called "Hot-lanta." And African-American stars flocks to this entertainment Mecca-in-training as do black urban professionals (Buppies).

But if you're LGBTQ in "Hot-lanta" you stay in the closet, as Lemon once did.

Disaster - Chris Meloni leaving SVU

My beloved duo of sex crime fighters Eliot Stabler and Olivia Benson is getting tossed in the ashcan...TVline:

Chris Meloni will not be reporting back for duty when Law & Order: Special Victims Unit launches its 13th season this fall, TVLine has learned exclusively.

Protracted talks between the actor - who has played Detective Stabler since the NBC crime drama's 1999 debut - and studio NBC Universal broke down on Tuesday, says a source. Franchise creator Dick Wolf is said to already be searching for a big name to bring in opposite the series' female lead, Mariska Hargitay.

The reports are true, Ice T confirms:

And the news gets worse - Mariska Hargitay, who recently adopted a child, is reducing her airtime next season, and NBC is floating the idea of bringing in...Jennifer Love Hewitt. Gawd almighty is that a bad selection.

I know the regular L&O had a revolving door of cast members over its lifetime, but SVU's writing was more character-based, so losing the two leads will be devastating. Chris Meloni...sigh, we'll miss you madly.

Note to Dick Wolf and NBC - if you are going to bring in new people, don't go for retread stars like Hewitt. Reach deeper into the talent pool than that. Go for character actors like you did the first go-round. Jeez, bring Casey Novak back with badge or something (oh wait, they did that on L&O: LA already, lol).

Related:

* Law & Order: SVU's Chris Meloni video for New Yorkers for Marriage Equality

In Russia to Support Moscow Pride

Yesterday I landed at Domodedovo airport to participate in the “illegal” Moscow Pride, banned by the Russian authorities, but nonetheless going forward under the leadership of GayRussia at 12 noon this Saturday, May 28.  
Despite a decision last fall by the European Court of Human Rights that the Russian government’s bans of previous Pride events were in violation of the Russian Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of assembly, Moscow authorities have again banned Moscow Pride this year.  

They have cited their alleged inability to provide security for the non-violent Pride demonstrators as the reason for the ban.  Participants in the first two Moscow Pride events, in 2006 and 2007, faced violence from neo-fascist counter-demonstrators and arrests by the police.

In 2008 and 2009, the fascists were hoodwinked into going to the wrong location, but Pride participants were nonetheless arrested, including me, at my first Moscow Pride in 2009.  In 2010 there were no arrests, as GayRussia Pride organizers (www.gayrussia.eu) used subterfuge and a “flash mob” approach to elude both fascists and the police.

The Russian authorities apparently have the power to provide security for innumerable visiting heads of state, including President Obama, but not for their own citizens when they avail themselves of a right guaranteed by the Russian Constitution.  It is stupid of the representatives of the second or third greatest military power in the world to claim that they are incapable of providing adequate protection for non-violent Moscow Pride participants.

This year, in light of the landmark European Court of Human Rights decision, GayRussia organizers have vowed that they will return to their early practice of publicly announcing the time and location of the Pride event in the center of Moscow.

It is testimony to the courage of GayRussia organizers that they have chosen to go forward with Moscow Pride, despite the authorities’ illegal ban on Pride and the lack of every legal protection for Russian LGBTs – of their jobs and housing, for example.  The European Court has said that Russian LGBTs have the right to assemble, but this remains a paper decision with no impact.

GayRussia’s decision to go forward with Pride is very reminiscent of the heroic decision 50 years ago this year by Civil Rights activists in the U.S. to launch the Freedom Rides to test the federal ban on segregated transportation facilities.   Then and today, while high court decisions remain toothless, direct action is required to ensure that rights are won in reality.  This is a lesson that advocates of civil rights around the world can learn from.

Please call the Russian embassy in Washington, DC -- (202) 338-3263 or (202) 232-5988 -- to protest their decision to ban Pride, and to demand that they ensure the safety of Pride recipients.  

I will be blogging from Moscow over the next few days, will participate in Saturday’s Pride demonstration, and am scheduled to return to the United States on Monday, May 30.  I want to thank all my friends in the Chicago’s Gay Liberation Network for supporting my participation in this very important event.

MN Governor "Vetoes" Marriage Amendment

Governor Mark Dayton doesn't actually have the power to veto Minnesota's brand spanking new gay marriage ban Constitutional amendment. But he did it anyway. The legislature sent the question directly to voters, so the event was purely symbolic.

But he seemed to feel it was worthwhile to make a big media event and put on a big show of delivering his emblematic "veto."

Awesome.

That's how you use a bully pulpit to affect change. Give that odious law a big, symbolic and very public thumpin' right out of the gate. After today, no Minnesotans will be confused about where their Governor stands on this issue. Thank you for using the power of your office, Governor Dayton, to stand up against bigotry. I'd say Dayton probably picked up a bunch of new enthusiastic volunteers for his next campaign.

More details at David Badash's blog, The New Civil Rights Movement:

The Governor called the proposed amendment “divisive and destructive,” and “un- Minnesotan and un- American.“

I'd say the fight to stop this amendment got off a rousing start.

Minnesotans United For All Families seems to be the up and running to fight this. Follow them on Twitter @MN4allfamilies. 

MN: State Senator Scott Dibble's letter to the LGBT community about the marriage amendment

Letter from Senator Scott Dibble to the GLBT and Allied community on the Minnesota Legislature's passage of the anti-marriage constitutional amendment. It's a call to action to stop this garbage.

                   

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Join The Fight For Marriage Equality In NY

In the coming weeks, New York State has a historic opportunity to pass marriage equality. We’ve tried before, as recently as 2009, but we came up just short. But this time, the wind is at our backs and every day it feels like momentum is building.   The timing couldn’t be better for passage of marriage equality in New York. Polls consistently show majority support among New Yorkers for marriage. And Governor Cuomo, who is working hard to build a coalition of support and lobby lawmakers, has called for a vote in the state legislature before the current term ends at the end of June. 
But we’re not there yet. As we learned from the experience in 2009, as well as what happened in California and Maine, you can never take anything for granted and we must never underestimate our opposition. So I need your help. So many of my constituents  -- straight and LGBT alike -- are counting on you.
Like Grace from Huntington, NY, who told her story on DFA's repeal DOMA petition page: 

My partner of almost 15 years and I would like to marry.  Our families support us and want this for us as well. My mother would love nothing more than to walk her daughter down the aisle and marry the person she loves.

And Trevor from New York City: 

My fiance and I live in New York.  We are planning on getting married September 17th of this year in New York.  Right now, we will have to travel to Connecticut at some point before that day, get married in a civil ceremony in a state that is not our own.  We love being New Yorkers and would love to get married in our home state and have marriage be the real deal.

And Joy from Chappaqua,: 

My partner and I have lived in Westchester County, NY for 14 years.  We are raising a 16 year old son and a 7 year old daughter...we work and live in the area and have been fully accepted and integrated.  My children's generation thinks nothing of the make up of our family and sees only a family...isn't it time for the rest of us to do the same!!!!!

 And Steve from Westfield:

Two of the most wonderful loving men I know are getting married in New York State in September----let's make it legal!

 Can you help me deliver marriage equality for Grace, Trevor, Joy, Steve and all New Yorkers? Here’s what you can do: 1. Please call your State Senator and ask him or her to vote YES. It doesn’t matter whether you know your Senator is a definite yes, a definite no or on the fence. I want the YESES to outweigh the NOS in EVERY district throughout the state. To make a call is simple. Just go to my Friendfactor friendsetter page, enter in your information and the calling tool will connect you with your state senator. My goal is to generate 250 calls. I hope you'll help me reach my goal. 2. In addition, please forward this blog post to your friends and family here in NY, share it on Facebook and tweet it to all your friends.  3. Also, if you can, please contribute whatever you can afford to New Yorkers United For Marriage to keep their excellent ad up on the air. I know the only way marriage equality will pass in New York is if the grassroots rises up and demands it and that’s what I’m asking of you today. Thank you so much for all your extraordinary activism on this issue. I know that like me, you believe that every New Yorker – and every American – deserves to marry the person they love. Together, in a few weeks, I know we can make that a reality for all New Yorkers.

NY Marriage Equality Field Action In Queens Today

New Yorkers United for Marriage send out this alert for field action. They'll be collecting signature and encouraging Queens voters to call their Senators. This outreach action is aimed directly at critical population in the key Senate districts of Queens, NY.

Forest Hills Action; Post-carding and 'Stop and Dials' on Queens Boulevard.

Take the E F M or R to Forest Hills 71 Av.

Shift: 5pm-8pm

It is an ideal location due to its easy access to the subway and because of the heavy and friendly foot traffic. A central commuting hub techinically is in Senator Stavisky's disctict, but is adjacent to critical swing Senators Shirley Huntley and Joseph Addabbo. Seen on a listserve:

I love this location, and it was super easy getting signatures here last week. Plus - many of the signatures hit Huntley's district as well, so it's doubly effective as a site.

Press is expected, so nice photo-op for them would be nice.

NOM playing the astroturf game against marriage equality in NC

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

On its blog, the National Organization for Marriage is gloating over the Minnesota vote while at the same time claiming that it is spurring North Carolina citizens to speak out for so-called "traditional marriage:"

Victory in Minnesota is encouraging North Carolinans to call for their right to vote for marriage, in the op-ed pages of the Winston-Salem Journal:

Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children.  No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party. To Christians, marriage remains the cornerstone of society, not some government response to the most recent group of discontented Americans. Rather than wait to see what the Beltway elite decide, North Carolina should pass its own protection of marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all.  Numerous polls over the years consistently show that the majority of people in North Carolina want marriage defined as being between a man and a woman.

Conveniently NOM does not reveal who wrote this piece. The author is Nathan Tabor, who is chairman of the Forsyth County Republican Party. And based on his past pieces,  it's safe to say that NOM's veiled description that Tabor was "inspired" to write his piece because of what happened in Minnesota is inaccurate.

In fact, it's safe to say that NOM's description is a downright lie.

Nathan Tabor is a conservative activist who has run for office several times in North Carolina. In addition, he  written several ugly anti-gay pieces over the years, including:

Charles Darwin disagrees with homosexuality - 2005

Another liberal fairy tale - 2006

In 2005, he started an ugly controversy when a piece he wrote, Homosexuals should pay more insurance, cited the work of the discredited Paul Cameron (who by the way, is cited by the Minnesota Family Council, NOM's partner against marriage equality in that state).

Last week, he was cited in an article about the marriage amendment in North Carolina saying the following:

"There is no separation of church and state. It's not in the Constitution. It's the liberal agenda to take God out of America."

For NOM to imply that Tabor was spurred to speak up against marriage equality because of the Minnesota vote (as if he was an ordinary citizen caught up in the moment) is totally untrue.

Most likely, Tabor and NOM are working in conjunction to get pieces in the North Carolina press to speak against marriage equality.

Tabor's piece reads like a speech from NOM leader Maggie Gallagher. He is even so tacky as to include NOM's main talking point in his column:

Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose . . . however they don't have the right to redefine marriage.

My question is when does the convenient column labeling North Carolina lgbts as intolerant bullies come? No doubt we will probably see more of this in North Carolina and Minnesota, i.e. this bizarre degree of astroturfing where those working with NOM write letters to the editors and columns using the organization's inaccurate talking points against marriage equality while NOM implies on its blog that they are "ordinary citizen spurred on to defend marriage."

It's a nasty game that NOM is playing. And unfortunately same-sex couples and their children may end up losing this game.

Lies And Distortion From NOM On Scozzafava's Loss In NY-23

The National Organization for Marriage has exploited Republican Dede Scozzafava's defeat in a 2009 Special Election in New York's 23th Congressional District to its fullest to serve as a warning to Republicans to tow the line on marriage equality.

Maggie Gallagher loves to use the phrase "the Dede effect" to scare lawmakers from voting for same-sex marriage legislation, and it's been very effective.

NOM as sought to raise Scozzafava to iconic status as the electoral boogeyman of same-sex marriage. NOM loves to press the talking point that gay-friendly = Electoral Death.

And they're doing it again, seeking to make Scozzafava's loss all about her vote for marriage equality in the New York Assembly House. The new ad says:

But when Dede faced the voters again as a congressional candidate, she learned that New Yorkers do care about defending traditional marriage after all.

Actually. . . NOM? Not so much.

Those of us in New York who watched the race closely, know there was so much more to the story than just her one vote on marriage equality, which scarcely registered at all amidst all her other campaign problems. 

There were a lot of reasons Republican Scozzafava lost that race. The very least of them her vote on marriage equality. Scozzafava failed to connect with her Republican base for a great number of reasons. Her affronts to conservative principles ran far and wide, encompassing much, much more than just her support of marriage equality.

Since NOM is an out-of-state special interest group, it's understandable they wouldn't know the truth of the race. The real story from a real New Yorker after the fold.

The Conservative Heretic

A closer inspection reveals Scozzafava to be a virtual heretic to every principle the current crop of Republicans hold dear, from ACORN to abortion to hating all things Obama. Just some of her affronts to the Republican Party that surfaced during the campaign include:

Scozzafava was strongly pro-choice and even suggested she'd support using federal funds for abortion.Scozzafava received an award from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in 2008, which drew much fire.Scozzafava said she would support The Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA ("card check") legislation, a key goal of Labor at the time.Scozzafava expressed support the 2009 stimulus package aka known as President Obama's agenda of Big Government Spending.Scozzafava refused to rule out voting to pass "Obamacare" aka the Affordable Health Care Act including possibly supporting the Public Option.Conservatives criticized Scozzafava for accepting the endorsement of the Working Families Party in her earlier assembly campaigns, noting the close ties between that party and liberal activist group ACORN.Many notable Republicans, including former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, repudiated Scozzafava by endorsing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

To recap: support for Obama, Acorn, Women's Choice, Affordable Health Care, Labor, Gays, so much for good Democrats to like in Dede Scozzafava, but they already had a candidate.

And so little for Republicans to support. In fact, the right wing's favorite liberal boogeyman Markos Moulitsas, of the  Daily Kos blog wrote a column in which he threw his support to Scozzafava. I'm sure that helped her win the split conservative vote.

And it is indeed possible that the specter of Scozzafava's support for Big Government Spending going to Acorn, Abortions and Health Care was looming much larger on GOP voters' minds than her support for marriage equality. Marriage equality is the shiniest and most notable of her infractions however, and as such, will be the one most remembered.

The Inept Campaigner In truth, Scozzafava may have been a wholly inappropriate choice for the GOP County Chairs to have selected from the get-go. Outflanked left and right, there was no base of support for her candidacy from any constituency, conservative or liberal. And she didn't much help herself by running an especially bad campaign, which included many missteps. Scozzafava's husband called the cops on a reporter filing a nuisance complaint. Not a good way to ingratiate the campaign with the press.

Early in the campaign, Scozzafava held a press conference outside opponent Doug Hoffman's campaign offices. Hoffman's campaign staff and volunteers smartly exploited the opportunity to surround her with Hoffman campaign signs as she spoke. The iconic picture has come to epitomize campaign photo-op FAIL. David Nir of Swing Street Project and Daily Kos said at the time: NY-23: This Picture Just About Sums It Up.

Not surprisingly, she was also was reported to be "dangerously low on campaign cash" six weeks prior to election day, and abandoned by the Republican National Committee and other establishment Republicans.

But legend has become that it was her marriage equality vote that ended her career.

The National Organization for Marriage is happy to reinforce this talking point at every opportunity to serve their goal of demonizing gays as untouchables:

We have a message for GOProud on marriage: If you try to elect pro-gay-marriage Republicans, we will Dede Scozzafava them.

This is expected. I expect nothing less than revisionist history, lies and cherry-picking from Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown. They have made big business out of it.

We don't know what the future might have held for Scozzfava's political career. Scozzafava said she felt betrayed by the Republican party through this experience, and can anyone blame her? No doubt the drubbing she received from all quarters left her damaged goods in conservative circles. It was reported she was assured by the Democratic party there would be a place for her should she decide to seek a seventh term in the Senate. She voluntarily elected not to seek re-election to the Assembly.

All 4 Marriage Equality Supportive Republicans Got Re-Elected In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the conclusion her marriage equality vote was a major factor is a largely unsupportable. There were four other Assembly Republicans who also voted for marriage equality in 2009: Joel Miller of the 102nd District; Teresa Sayward of the 113th District; Janet Duprey of the 114th District; Fred Thiele of the 2nd District.

All of them returned to the Assembly after the 2010 election cycle, some completely unchallenged and some with resounding victories. Also, all were stripped of their Conservative Party ballot line, which is believed in New York state to be so essential to victory.

For now, I hope GOP Senators take a breath and look past the National Organization For Marriage and Conservative Party's saber rattling and look at the facts. It was only marriage equality opponents that felt the heat in the 2010 election cycle, not the supporters.

And 2011 is not 2009. There have been several Federal Court repudiations of discriminatory marriage policies on Prop 8 and Defense of Marriage Act since then, with the Justice Department concurring such discrimination is Unconstitutional.

Moreover, with regards to the electoral politics, we have seen boatloads of conservative cash going behind the marriage equality effort in New York and assurances from GOP donors that—unlike Scozzafava—they will cover the Senators' electoral backs. These include billionaire Michael Bloomberg and Daniel Loeb, who is quoted in the New York Times:

One of the donors, Daniel S. Loeb, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates for federal office in the last two years, said he hoped to make clear to Republicans that same-sex marriage had a broad coalition of support.

“I think it is important in particular for Republicans to know this is a bipartisan issue,” Mr. Loeb said. “If they’re Republican, they will not be abandoned by the party for supporting this. On the contrary, I think they will find that there is a whole new world of people who will support them on an ongoing basis if they support this cause.”

Republican Senators that vote for marriage equality in 2011, are almost certain to find in 2012, like their colleagues in the Assembly in 2010, the Conservative Party's bark is much worse than its bite.

Breaking: Defense bill - Obama admin supports DOMA repeal, condemns attempts to delay DADT repeal

Just in from the White House. The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and contains information related to DOMA and DADT.

The Obama administration supports section 3 DOMA repeal and 'strongly objects' to any legislative attempts to directly or indirectly undermine or delay DADT repeal. Here is the relevant section of the press release:

Attempts to Prevent, Delay, or Undermine the Repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell": On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, in order to strengthen our national security, enhance military readiness, and uphold the fundamental American principles of fairness and equality that warfighters defend around the world. As required by that statute, DoD is diligently working to prepare the necessary policies and regulations and conducting educational briefings to implement the repeal. Should it be determined, as required by the statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification. The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families.

Military Regulations Regarding Marriage: The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal.

The full release is below the fold.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

           

May 24, 2011

(House Rules)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 1540 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012

(Rep. McKeon (R-CA) and 1 cosponsor)

 

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  The Administration appreciates the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our national defense, including its support for the topline budget requests for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations and for supporting most of the Administration’s initiatives to control the Department of Defense’s spiraling health costs.

 

The Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for authorities that assist the ability of the warfighter to operate in unconventional and irregular warfare, authorities that are important to field commanders, such as the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, the Global Train and Equip Authority, the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, and other programs that provide commanders with the resources and flexibility to counter unconventional threats or support contingency or stability operations.  The Administration looks forward to reviewing a classified annex and working with the Congress to address any concerns on classified programs as the legislative process moves forward.

 

While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration has serious concerns with several provisions that:  (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make and implement management decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.  The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail below. 

 

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Propulsion System

:  The Administration strongly objects to the language in section 215, which limits the obligation or expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 Lightning II propulsion system unless there is competitive development and production of such a propulsion system.  As the test program unfolds, some improvements are likely to be needed.  And this would result in the continued development of an extra engine that adds significant extra costs to the program for something the Administration and the Department of Defense (DoD) have determined is not needed and would destabilize the F-35 program when it is beginning to stabilize.  Additionally, section 215 would delay development of the main engine and affect the viability of the short take off and vertical landing variant.  If the final bill presented to the President includes funding or a legislative direction to continue an extra engine program, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.

 

The Administration also strongly objects to section 252, which requires the Secretary to store and preserve the property developed under the F136 program – a termination that ended an unnecessary and extravagant expense, particularly during this period of fiscal restraint.  The legislation would constitute a new requirement for the preservation and storage of over 250,000 pieces of Government property located with hundreds of suppliers and add costs for preserving and storing that property. 

 

Limitations on Nuclear Force Reductions and Nuclear Employment Strategy

:  The Administration strongly objects to sections 1055 and 1056, which impinge on the President’s authority to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy.  In particular, section 1055 would set onerous conditions on the Administration’s ability to implement the Treaty, as well as to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons.  Among these conditions is the completion and operation of the next generation of nuclear facilities, which is not expected until the mid-2020s.  The effect of this section would be to preclude dismantlement of weapons in excess of military needs.  Additionally, it would significantly increase stewardship and management costs and divert key resources from our critical stockpile sustainment efforts and delay completion of programs necessary to support the long-term safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent.  Further, section 1056 raises constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to set nuclear employment policy – a right exercised by every president in the nuclear age from both parties. If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.

 

Detainee Matters

:  The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards.  At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion.  The Administration strongly objects to the provisions that limit the use of authorized funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers and to the provisions that would legislate Executive branch processes for periodic review of detainee status and regarding prosecution of detainees.  Although the Administration opposes the release of detainees within the United States, Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests.  It unnecessarily constrains our Nation's counterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security, particularly where our Federal courts are the best – or even the only – option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists.  For decades, presidents of both political parties – including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush – have leveraged the flexibility and strength of our Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and gather critical intelligence.  The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of our counterterrorism efforts – a powerful tool that must remain an available option.  The certification requirement in section 1040, restricting transfers to foreign countries, interferes with the authority of the Executive branch to make important foreign policy and national security determinations regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers should occur.  The Administration must have the ability to act swiftly and to have broad flexibility in conducting its negotiations with foreign countries.  Section 1036 undermines the system of periodic review established by the President’s March 7, 2011, Executive Order by substituting a rigid system of review that could limit the advice and expertise of critical intelligence and law enforcement professionals, undermining the Executive branch’s ability to ensure that these decisions are informed by all available information and protect the full spectrum of our national security interests.  It also unnecessarily interferes with DoD’s ability to manage detention operations.  Section 1042 is problematic and unnecessary, as there already is robust coordination between the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Intelligence Community on terrorism-related cases, and this provision would undermine, rather than enhance, this coordination by requiring institutions to assume unfamiliar roles and could cause delays in taking into custody individuals who pose imminent threats to the nation’s safety.  If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions that challenge critical Executive branch authority, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

 

Attempts to Prevent, Delay, or Undermine the Repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"

:  On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, in order to strengthen our national security, enhance military readiness, and uphold the fundamental American principles of fairness and equality that warfighters defend around the world.  As required by that statute, DoD is diligently working to prepare the necessary policies and regulations and conducting educational briefings to implement the repeal.  Should it be determined, as required by the statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification.  The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families. 

 

Military Regulations Regarding Marriage

:  The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal. 

 

Limitation on Funds to Provide Russian Federation with Access to U.S. Missile Defense Technology and International Agreements Relating to Missile Defense

:  The Administration strongly objects to the following two sections: (1) section 1228 would prohibit the provision to the Russian Federation of a range of missile defense data, when the appropriate reciprocal exchange of such data may improve the ability of the United States and NATO to provide effective missile defenses of our military forces and other citizens; and (2) section 1229 would unnecessarily impede the Administration's ability to conduct discussions with the Russian Federation on missile defense matters both bilaterally and in the NATO context, and would be impractical to implement, for example by requiring that the Administration report on all "suggestions" made by representatives of the Russian Federation in government to government contacts (which could include the legislative branch).  Among other things, section 1229 raises constitutional concerns, as it appears to encroach on the President’s exclusive authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations and to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive diplomatic discussions.

 

Extended Deterrent in Europe

:  The Administration strongly objects, including on constitutional grounds, to the elements of section 1230 that would limit the President’s ability to determine military requirements in Europe, conduct diplomacy, and negotiate treaties.  The Administration also objects to this section’s limitation on Administration efforts to address tactical nuclear weapons, a step called for in the Senate’s Resolution of Ratification of the New START Treaty and a priority of U.S. arms control policy.  Further, the Administration notes this section would inhibit our ability to function within NATO. 

 

Limitation on Force Management Efficiencies

:  The Administration strongly objects to provisions such as sections 1094, 2307, 2705, and 2862 that would limit the Secretary’s discretion in determining and executing force management efficiencies.  For example, section 1094 would require the Secretary of the Navy to maintain a minimum force of 10 aircraft carrier air-wings and a dedicated headquarters for each.  However, a reduction from 10 to 9 aircraft carrier air wings staff is projected to save DoD approximately $22.2 million over five years (FYs 2012-2016) and meets the needs of the Navy which has no operational need for a 10th carrier air wing.  Additionally, sections 2307, 2705, and 2862, requiring additional study and notice of proposed disestablishment, closure or realignment of certain military installations, or the reduction in the number of military personnel and waiting times prior to execution, impedes the Secretary’s ability to make and implement force management decisions that would ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter.   

 

Unified Medical Command

:  The Administration strongly objects to section 711, which would require the President to create a new unified combatant command for medical operations.  DoD will shortly complete a study on how to best deliver high-quality medical care to servicemembers and their families in an effective and cost-efficient manner.  Among the options this study will consider is a joint medical command similar to this provision; however, this section presumes the outcome of the study and of decisions to be made by DoD leadership on this important subject.  

 

Designation of Main Propulsion System of the Next-Generation Long Range Strike Bomber Aircraft as Major Subprogram

:  The Administration objects to language in section 220, which would require the Secretary of Defense to designate the main propulsion system of the next-generation long-range strike bomber as a major subprogram and require a competitive acquisition strategy.  A major tenet of the new bomber program is to maximize the use of existing engine systems.  The approach needs to rely on minor modifications to existing engines and give the prime contractors freedom to select the engine that is right for their design.  Moreover, the prime contractor’s design concepts may differ so widely that it would be impractical to have a separate engine competition and then insert the winning engine into the winning airframe.  Mandating such development would likely result in increased cost and risk.  Also, this provision would require the designation of a major subprogram on a program that has not yet been designated as a major defense acquisition program.

 

Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund

:  The Administration objects to sections 1433 and 4501, which authorize the transfer of $1 billion through the "Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund" to support efforts not requested in the FY 2012 Budget. 

 

Diversion of Funding

:  Over a hundred provisions of the bill (sections 1601-1699M) direct that the relevant Secretary "shall obligate" specified funding in particular ways.  The Administration is concerned that these provisions could preclude the use of DoD funds for higher priority military needs.  The Administration requires more time to review these provisions and assess their impact on DoD.

 

PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP)

:  The Administration appreciates the support for DoD's air and missile defense programs; however, it objects to the $149.5 million authorization reduction in the PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program. This reduction could trigger a unilateral withdrawal from the MEADS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Germany and Italy, which could further lead to a DoD obligation to pay all contract costs—a scenario that would likely exceed the cost of satisfying its commitment under the MOU.  This reduction also could call into question DoD's ability to honor its financial commitments in other binding cooperative MOUs, leading to negative consequences for other current and future international cooperative programs.

 

Advance Appropriations

:  The Administration appreciates the Committee’s stated support for the Administration’s new strategy for reforming space acquisition.  However, the Administration is disappointed that no requested advance appropriations are authorized.  Section 132 would only authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to procure two Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites through incremental funding.  Further, H.R. 1540 authorizes only a small portion of the total remaining cost of $4.1 billion requested in regular and advance appropriations to enable full-funding of procurement of AEHF satellites and certain classified programs.  Providing the full procurement costs in advance appropriations before proceeding with the acquisition is central to the Administration’s new acquisition strategy and cost discipline approach.

 

Ship and Military Construction Incremental Funding

:  The Administration objects to the incremental funding in section 121, which would authorize an additional year of incremental funding for the LHA-7 amphibious assault ship.  Large-deck amphibious ships are already funded over two years, and any additional incremental funding period runs counter to sound budgeting principles and fiscal discipline.  Section 4601 would incrementally fund military construction projects, which raises the same concerns and increases the costs of the projects. 

 

Military Activities in Cyberspace

:  The Administration agrees that appropriate military operations in cyberspace are a vital component of national security, but objects to Section 962.  The Administration has concerns about this provision and wants to work with Congress to ensure that any such legislation adds clarity and value to our efforts in cyberspace.

 

Diversion of Pension Funding

:  The Administration strongly objects to the restriction in section 3113 of Executive branch authority to manage obligations for contractor pension obligations.  In the FY 2012 Budget, the Administration added substantial funds to ensure that defined-benefit pension plans of Department of Energy contractors are financially viable.  This legislation circumvents efforts by the Administration to implement long-term solutions for pension funding shortfalls.

 

Abrams/Bradley Upgrades

:  The Administration objects to $425 million of unrequested authorization in section 4101, line 007 and 014 for upgrades to M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles for unneeded upgrades in a fiscally-constrained environment. 

 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV)

:  Section 214 would restrict the ability to develop improvements to existing AAVs until the completion of an analysis of AAV requirements and the completion of an analysis of alternatives of various options to fill such requirements.  The Marine Corps is committed to a follow-on for the AAV; however, this provision would limit the ability to both improve the existing fleet and inhibit analysis of the best replacement options.

 

Troops to Teachers Program

:  The Administration urges the House’s support for the transfer of the Troops to Teachers Program to DoD in FY 2012, as reflected in the President’s Budget and DoD’s legislative proposal to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and Title 10 of the U.S. Code.  The move to Defense will help ensure that this important program supporting members of the military as teachers is retained and provide better oversight of program outcomes by simplifying and streamlining program management.  The Administration looks forward to keeping the Congress abreast of this transfer, to ensure it runs smoothly and has no adverse impact on program enrollees.

 

A number of the bill’s provisions raise additional constitutional concerns, including encroachment on the President’s exclusive authorities related to international negotiations.  The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns.         

                   

* * * * * * *