I worry that there’s a lack of understanding there of what this means from the perspective of the troops. You know, if you’re out there on the line day in and day out and putting your life at risk on a volunteer basis for the nation, and you see the Commander in Chief unable, to or appearing to be unable, to make a decision about the way forward here — you know that raises serious doubts. Nobody wants to think of volunteering to be participate in that kind of operation. [...]

It may in part be inexperience on Obama’s part. It may be that there’s confusion on the staff. But I’m not encouraged by it.

Listen here (beginning at 2:20):

Cheney really doesn’t have any more authority on this subject than Obama does. He neither served in the military, nor has he been Commander-in-Chief. As the New York Times noted in 2004:

Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

Bush administration officials also seemed to think that they were soldiers in the military, with former White House press secretary Tony Snow saying that President Bush was on the “front lines” and “in the war every day.” In April 2007, First Lady Laura Bush said that “no one suffers more than their President and I do” during wartime, and Bush would speak on behalf of U.S. servicemembers to bolster his policy ideas. “The [military] families gathered here understand that our troops want to finish the job,” Bush said in 2007 during a speech opposing Iraq redeployment.

Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?

The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]

Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.

Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.

VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.

Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).

How concerned are you that the shooting at Fort Hood will prompt a backlash against Muslims serving in the military- very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, not at all concerned?

23% Very concerned
34% Somewhat concerned
29% Not very concerned
11% Not at all concerned
2% Not sure

On Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey also said he was concerned that the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan may “cause a backlash” against Muslim soldiers, and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano warned against an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” Nevertheless, last night on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly said that it was good to try to win the hearts and minds of Muslims — but only because the U.S. can’t kill them all. “Barack Obama wants to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and in the Muslim world, which is a good thing,” said O’Reilly. “And you know that, as a soldier, we can’t kill all the Muslims. So we want to win as many hearts and minds of good, moderate Muslims as we can.”

“During the chase, the suspect called 911 and claimed an Arabic male attempted to rob him and he was going to take him into custody,” a Tampa Police Department news release states. “When officers arrived, the suspect claimed the man was a terrorist.”

Police arrested Bruce for “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

Democratic Senators are calling on Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to lift his hold on a veterans’ health bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to clear before the chamber adjourns this week for a three-day recess.

Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) will hold a press conference Monday to rally support for the measure. [...]

In a floor statement Friday, Begich called on Coburn to lift his hold. Other Democratic Senators made similar appeals, but Begich took the rare step of naming Coburn on the Senate floor.

“I am disappointed that my Senate colleague does not feel this same sense of duty and responsibility to our nation’s heroes, who have sacrificed so much for our very right to stand in this body and debate this matter,” Begich said. “There is no good reason or rationale for a hold to be placed on this legislation and I call on my colleague to remove his hold.”

Unfortunately, using holds to obstruct progress is nothing new for “Dr. No.” He has previously used holds on legislation such as an HIV/AIDS prevention bill and a public lands bill. VoteVets.org, a leading veterans advocacy group, has put together an online petition to call on Coburn to lift his hold.

As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well. [...] I worry that again that speculation could cause things that we don’t want to see happen.

On ABC, Casey emphasized that the diversity of our Army and society as a whole “gives us all strength.” Watch it:

Some of the “speculation” that Casey is concerned about has emanated from right-wing circles. For example, the hosts of Fox & Friends suggested that “special debriefings” and “special screenings” of Muslim soldiers should be considered. Also, Allen West — a Republican congressional candidate and Iraq war vet — used the murders to claim the “enemy is infiltrating our military.”

On a trip to the United Arab Emirates, Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said, “Obviously, we object to — and do not believe — that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this.” Speaking with a group of women university students, she said, “This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith.”

Earlier this week, right-wing columnist Ralph Peters claimed that “political correctness killed those patriotic Americans” because military officials pander to “America-haters.” Reacting to this common right-wing argument, Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS that Hasan’s “actions do not reflect on the Islamic Muslim faith.” He added, “This man’s actions reflect on him. And if we missed some signals on him that we should have known, great. But let’s don’t take this to a level that we should not.” Graham concluded, “Let’s don’t accuse people for giving him a pass because he’s a Muslim because I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.”

Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.

Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill. [...]

In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.

“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”

Steve Robertson, the legislative director for the veterans advocacy group The American Legion, met with Coburn’s staff about the holds on the bills and came away disappointed with their refusal to budge on the issue. “For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” Robertson told the press. “They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill…I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”

This past Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Hoh about his views on the war. During one segment of the interview, Zakaria asked Hoh why he feels the U.S. should begin to draw down its troops from the country. Hoh replied that he doesn’t see the Afghan conflict as one between the U.S. and the Taliban, but rather as a 35-year long “civil war” between rural Pashtuns “who want to be left alone” and an urban government the U.S. is backing:

HOH: I firmly believe that we are taking part in a civil war. We are on the same side of the civil war that the Soviets intervened on.

ZAKARIA: So, you have a divide among the Pashtuns. There’s the urban middle class. And Karzai, presumably, who is a Pashtun, comes from this urban middle class.

HOH: Correct.

ZAKARIA: Many of them left the country after the — during the years of the civil war. And the ones who have stayed to fight, who fought the Soviet Union and who are now fighting us, are the rural, mountain tribe Pashtuns who resent the central government and its intrusions.

HOH: Who want to be left alone.

Watch it:

Hoh also told Zakaria that he thinks keeping 60,000 troops in Afghanistan is detrimental to U.S. security. “Occupying a location only provides justification and only lends credence to the goals of that organization,” he said. “It only inspires young Muslim men to defend their culture against an occupying army, which is what we are.”

When the CNN host asked Hoh why he was speaking out, the former State Department employee cited support from two groups: Afghan Americans and U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan. “I’ve had a lot of Afghan-Americans contact me and say, ‘Matt, you get it,’” Hoh told Zakaria. “I’ve gotten many e-mails from guys [serving] in Afghanistan…men and women who are saying, ‘Matt, thanks for doing this.’”

“As a veteran, I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath he or she took to defend the Constitution of our great nation!” Mr. Metcalfe’s email reads. “Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda. Drill Baby Drill!!!”

Rep. Metcalfe, who served in the U.S. Army from 1980-84, today defended the remarks, saying that “if the type of policies that an individual promotes undermines the Constitution and the law of the land in our country, then they are not patriots.”

Global warming is inextricably linked to national security, with the potential to “aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions” around the world, which “could increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity.” In the past, Metcalfe has refused to support Domestic Violence Awareness month in Pennsylvania because the resolution referenced domestic abuse suffered by men, which Metcalfe interpreted as part of a “homosexual agenda.” He also opposed a vote to “honor the 60th anniversary of a Muslim group in the state, because ‘Muslims don’t recognize Jesus Christ as God.’”

Rove quickly disputed those comments, saying, “I don’t believe that at the time, the military was saying we need significantly more. If there had been that cry, I suspect the previous administration would have been very responsive to it.” When Sawyer asked him if he was blaming the generals for not asking for more troops, Rove replied:

ROVE: No, I’m not. No. No. No. I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources, and in retrospect, everybody now, says, I suspect, I wish we would have been doing more because the enemy, particularly as Iraq got better, the jihadists and al Qaeda needed a place to go, and they went to the Horn of Africa and they went to Pakistan and began to revitalize the efforts to attack Afghanistan.

As that grew, additional resources were sent by this administration and the previous administration to Afghanistan. But in retrospect, I think a lot of military experts say, we wish we would have been doing more. But that wasn’t what was going on at the time.

Watch it:

In 2008, Gen. David D. McKiernan, then the top U.S. commander in Kabul, specifically asked the Bush administration for more troops for Afghanistan, but was rebuffed:

“There was a saying when I got there: If you’re in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it,” McKiernan said in his first interview since being fired. “If you’re in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it.” By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush’s White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country’s east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan’s request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.

The war in Iraq was the main reason that Afghanistan was under-resourced. In July 2008, Mullen said, “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.” Military officials have said that the Taliban was pretty much gone in 2002, but regrouped when the Bush administration decided to shift resources and invade Iraq.

Transcript:

SAWYER: I want to turn to another big topic on the table at the White House, of course, Afghanistan and will there be a change in strategy there. George Will, as you know, a member of your team, has said a 40,000 troop increase will not be enough, and that they should concentrate instead on other approaches. The additional troops will not be enough and will not work. If you were advising the President, what would you tell him?

ROVE: I’d be saying, pay very close attention to the people you have put in command of the operation in Afghanistan. Listen closely to what they have to say about what they think they need in order to achieve the mission that you have defined for them, Mr. President, in March of this year. President Obama made very tough speech in March in which he outlined the consequences to the country and our world if Afghanistan returned to the way it was in the 1990s — a failed state.

So I’d say, give the commanders on the ground the closest attention, ask them tough questions, ask them to explain their positions, but listen carefully to what they suggest needs to be done in order to achieve the goals that you outlined in March.

SAWYER: Speaking of those commanders, Adm. McMullen [sic], who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and also Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is head of the operation in Afghanistan, have both said that the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years. Let me play what they said first:

[VIDEO] McCHRYSTAL: It’s been eight years. Why isn’t it better? … We’ve under-resourced our operations.

MULLEN: This has been a mission that has not been well-resourced; it’s been under-resourced almost since it’s inception, certainly in recent years. And part of why it has gotten more serious and deteriorated has been tied to that. [END VIDEO]

SAWYER: Did the Bush administration drop the ball on resourcing the war in Afghanistan?

ROVE: Well, I don’t — I think we’ve got to look at it in a more sophisticated way. I think that these questions — these answers become clear in retrospect. I don’t believe that at the time, the military was saying we need significantly more. If there had been that cry, I suspect the previous administration would have been very responsive to it.

There is a concern about were our NATO partners meeting their responsibility? We had prescribed a certain level of activity that we wanted NATO and the United States together, our coalition partners, to meet, and we felt in the previous administration, that our coalition partners were not meeting their responsibilities. It’s an attitude shared by the current administration, which remember, went to NATO earlier this year — President Obama did — and asked for additional resources and was rebuffed. It’s one of the reasons the Bush administration added additional resources to Afghanistan, it’s why President Obama added additional resources to Afghanistan.

SAWYER: So you’re saying it was the generals’ fault that they didn’t ask for more troops?

ROVE: No, I’m not. No. No. No. I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources, and in retrospect, everybody now, says, I suspect, I wish we would have been doing more because the enemy, particularly as Iraq got better, the jihadists and al Qaeda needed a place to go, and they went to the Horn of Africa and they went to Pakistan and began to revitalize the efforts to attack Afghanistan.

As that grew, additional resources were sent by this administration and the previous administration to Afghanistan. But in retrospect, I think a lot of military experts say, we wish we would have been doing more. But that wasn’t what was going on at the time.

HOST: Do you have an opinion about whether it’s time?

MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.

Levin rolled his eyes after hearing Myers’ remark. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said “there’s no question it’s time to change the policy.” Asked for his thoughts, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) avoided making any clear statements. Watch it:

According to Myers, silent discrimination is totally acceptable in the military. He’s happy to be the “beneficiary” of the sacrifices of soldiers who have to hide their sexual orientation. As the Pentagon’s own journal — Joint Force Quarterly — explains, the current policy damages unit cohesion:

The law as it currently stands does not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military as long as they keep it secret. This has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over 65,000, must compromise personal integrity. Given the growing gap between social mores and the law, DADT may do damage to the very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect. Finally, it has placed commanders in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect.

This current status quo of quiet discrimination is responsible for the dismissal of many qualified soldiers with critical skills. “By not allowing gay Americans to serve openly, we are imposing an artificial limit on the number of loyal Americans that our military can draw upon to fill its ranks,” writes Stephen Walt.

After Myers left his post in 2005, he was replaced by his deputy, Peter Pace, who opposed repealing DADT because he said homosexuality is “immoral.” The current Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, has taken a different view, stating that the military is prepared to accept a change in policy.

JONES: The President has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. He has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the President will take it on.

KING: No idea when the right time is?

JONES: Um, I don’t think it’s going to be — it’s not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately.

Watch it:

A prominent Pentagon journal reported the results of a study this week which found “that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.” Taking issue with Jones’ statement this morning, John Aravosis writes:

What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that…the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban? Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise.”

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In his Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson acknowledges that “military leaders seem impressed” with President Obama’s decision-making process. “Obama’s engaged, deliberate style has fans in the military,” he writes.

“The decision to terminate the Rendon contract was mine and mine alone. As the senior U.S. communicator in Afghanistan, it was clear that the issue of Rendon’s support to US forces in Afghanistan had become a distraction from our main mission,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, in an e-mail sent Sunday to Stars and Stripes.

“I have been here since early June and at no time has anyone who worked for me ever conducted themselves in a manner as your newspaper alleged. I cannot and will not speculate on the past, although I have found no systemic issues with fairness or equity in the way U.S. forces have run their media embed program.”

Although military officials denied using Rendon’s work to reject reporters wishing to embed with U.S. troops, a public affairs officer with the 101st Airborne Division said that “when his unit was in Afghanistan and in charge of the Rendon contract, he had used the conclusions contained in Rendon profiles in part to reject at least two journalists’ applications for embeds.”

Military officials immediately went about furiously refuting the reports. “We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.” Other officials for the Pentagon and Rendon went even further:

“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.” [...]

The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”

But new files prove otherwise. Stars and Stripes obtained profiles produced by Rendon. They clearly calculate the percentage of “positive” stories written by a reporter and offer ideas not about how to get the reporter to produce more accurate stories, but how to get more “favorable coverage” for the military. Fox News also obtained a slide from a Rendon PowerPoint presentation, where headlines from major newspapers are rated with “a plus sign, a negative sign or a capital ‘N,’ presumably for neutral.” Images from the profiles and PowerPoint:

Stars and Stripes also notes that one of the profiles looked at a reporter’s work as recently as May, indicating that the ranking did not stop in October 2008, as Whitman claimed.

What remains unclear is how extensively this ranking affects whether the military allows certain reporters to embed with troops. At least one reporter, Heath Druzin with Stars and Stripes, was barred for refusing to highlight more good news from the military. Fox News also obtained a Rendon memo that “showed that past coverage is at least taken into account during the process.”

Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company. [...]

The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million “news analysis and media assessment” contract, according to military and company officials.

Public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias insists that they “have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography.” However, last month, the military barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit in Iraq because he had “refused to highlight” good news. The military was also unhappy that the reporter “would not answer questions about stories he was writing.”

What is particularly troubling about this story is The Rendon Group’s history. The contractor has received millions from the U.S. government since 9/11 (at one point, taxpayers were paying CEO John Rendon $311.26/hour). The “secretive” firm personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate.

Professional journalism organizations are decrying the military’s contract with The Rendon Group. Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association, said that the “whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming.” Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that the government is “doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country.”

About 20 minutes into his speech, however, Clinton was interrupted by blogger Lane Hudson, who asked about the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that Clinton implemented. “Hey, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings,” Clinton joked before defending his actions as president and claiming that “nobody regrets how this was implemented anymore than I do”:

CLINTON: I hated what happened. I regret it but I didn’t have, I didn’t think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it’s ridiculous. Can you believe they spent, whatever they spent, $150,000 to get rid of a valued Arabic speaker recently? You know, the thing that changed me forever on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War and all their commanders knew they were gay, but they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them. Then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know. That’s all anybody needs to know that this policy should be changed.

Watch it:

At the Huffington Post, Hudson wrote that he interrupted the speech because “it became clear there would be no questions,” so when President Clinton said that “We need an honest, principled debate,” he stood and asked his question. Hudson said he was satisfied with Clinton’s answer on DADT, writing that “he made the strongest objection to DADT he has ever made to the best of my knowledge.”

The Obama White House has committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but is waiting to see “congressional action” first. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Sen. Kristian Gillibrand (D-NY) are taking the lead on repealing the provision in Congress.