[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 121 (Friday, September 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9986-S10005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S9986]]



               EMPLOYMENT NONDISCRIMI- NATION ACT OF 1996

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now begin consideration of S. 2056, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2056) to prohibit employment discrimination on 
     the basis of sexual orientation.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time for debate on the bill will be 
limited to 3 hours to be divided equally in the usual form.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam President. I yield myself such time as 
I might use.
  Madam President, this legislation is introduced by myself, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Boxer, Senator Bradley, Senator Chafee, Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold, 
Senator Feinstein, Senator Glenn, Senator Harkin, Senator Inouye, 
Senator Kerrey, Senator Kerry, Senator Kohl, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Mikulski, Senator Moseley-Braun, 
Senator Moynihan, Senator Murray, Senator Pell, Senator Reid, Senator 
Robb, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Simon, Senator Wellstone, and Senator 
Wyden.

  Madam President, I am pleased to bring before the U.S. Senate this 
morning the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. This act will eliminate 
job discrimination against gays and lesbians, and it represents the 
next major chapter in the American struggle to secure civil rights for 
all of our citizens.
  Our progress on civil rights and against discrimination has been one 
of the finest chapters in the Nation's modern history. The civil rights 
revolution that began in the 1950's is an unfinished revolution, and we 
all know the major milestones along the way in Congress: the Civil 
Rights Act of 1957; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 and subsequent extensions; the Fair Housing Act of 1968; the 
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; and the Civil Rights Act of 
1991.
  I might also mention the Immigration Act of 1965 which addressed the 
problem of national origin quotas and barriers to people coming into 
the United States from the Pacific basin and the Pacific rim countries.
  Madam President, we remember as well the battles that have taken 
place--the painful history that includes slavery, the Jim Crow laws, 
the Japanese internment camps, the Chinese exclusion laws, the Bracero 
program, and shameful policies and attitudes directed against women, 
against racial and religious minorities, and against the disabled. Each 
bill is an acknowledgment that America can rise above its prejudice to 
be a better, more tolerant society.
  Our country has a respected tradition of enacting antidiscrimination 
legislation to deal with discrimination against recognized groups of 
people. Time and again Congress has chosen justice over injustice and 
fairness over bigotry. The time has come to take the next important 
step in our ongoing battle against prejudice. After decades of 
discrimination against gays and lesbians, the Senate can send a strong 
signal that merit and hard work--not bias and stereotypes--are what 
counts in job opportunities and the workplace in America in 1996.
  Faced with irrefutable and compelling evidence of employment 
discrimination, the choice is clear. The Employment Nondiscrimination 
Act must become law.
  Half a century ago the Senate itself was the instigator of such 
discrimination. In 1950, the Senate directed the Senate Investigations 
Subcommittee to make an investigation into employment by the Government 
of homosexuals. The subcommittee recommended the dismissal of all 
homosexuals in Government. In 1953, President Eisenhower issued 
Executive Order 10450 requiring dismissal of all homosexual Government 
employees. As a result, during the period of 1947 through mid-1950, 
1,700 individuals were denied employment by the Federal Government 
because of their alleged homosexuality. In those times, Government 
discrimination was matched by flagrant discrimination by private 
employers.
  Government has changed. The private employers often have not. Many 
gays and lesbians still choose to hide their sexual orientation and 
live in daily fear that their employers will discover their 
homosexuality, terminate their jobs, and ruin their careers.
  A 1992 survey of 1,400 gays and lesbians in Philadelphia showed that 
76 percent of the men and 81 percent of the women concealed their 
sexual orientation at work. Openly homosexual people often suffer overt 
job discrimination.
  A review of 20 surveys conducted across the country between 1980 and 
1991 indicated that many gays and lesbians endured discrimination at 
work. Whether an employer has a written policy or simply allows 
discrimination to occur, it is clear that the underlying motivation is 
bigotry against men and women because of their sexual orientation.
  Take the case of Cheryl Summerville, who worked as a cook at a 
suburban Atlanta restaurant for 4 years and received excellent 
performance evaluations, awards, and promotions. In 1991, the company 
adopted a policy refusing to employ anyone ``whose sexual preferences 
fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values.'' As a result, she was 
fired. Her official separation notice read: ``This employee is being 
terminated due to violation of company policy. The employee is gay.''
  Dan Miller worked for a Pennsylvania management consulting company. 
He was fired, based on a clause in his employment contract that 
specifically made homosexuality a just cause for dismissal. Dan went to 
court, but to no avail. One of the jurors who heard the evidence 
stated, ``It was outrageous to hear intolerance like that in a court of 
law, where people come to seek protection from intolerance. But the law 
was silent.''
  There are too many more examples of unacceptable job discrimination 
suffered by gays and lesbians. There are too many other cases of hard-
working men and women losing their jobs or unable to get work due to 
their sexual orientation. In each case, the law offers no protection or 
recourse. That is why we need Federal legislation.
  The Employment Nondiscrimination Act is modeled after title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits employers from using sexual 
orientation as a basis for hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation. 
It's predicated upon the American ideal of equal opportunity. It gives 
gays and lesbians a fair chance in the workplace.
  It also includes broad exemptions. Despite the fact that over 150 
companies--including Levi Strauss, Micro- soft, and Walt Disney--choose 
to provide health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their 
employees, our legislation does not require an employer to provide 
domestic partnership benefits. That is a battle for another day.
  Our legislation also does not provide for disparate impact claims--
cases brought because an apparently neutral practice of an employer 
disproportionately and adversely effects members of a protected class.
  Quotas and preferential treatment are also prohibited under our 
proposal. Although employers may choose to reach out to members of the 
gay and lesbian community, they may not give preferential treatment in 
hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation based on sexual orientation.
  Many opponents of this legislation choose to ignore this plain 
prohibition. They argue that this bill will somehow lead to quotas. 
That result is not possible. No quotas means no quotas. Neither an 
employer nor a court can misinterpret Congress' plain meaning.
  Our legislation also contains a broad exemption for religious 
organizations. In fact, it is broader than the exemption for religious 
institutions in title VII of current law. Religious organizations are 
exempted entirely from the prohibition of discrimination based on 
sexual orientation, except for profit-making activities taxed by the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  Finally, our legislation does not apply to the Armed Services. The 
current ``Don't ask, Don't tell'' policy will remain in effect.
  The Employment Nondiscrimination Act is simple and straight forward. 
It is not a Government power grab in the workplace. It is not sweeping 
legislation advancing the gay agenda. This

[[Page S9987]]

act is about the American agenda. It is a carefully drafted proposal to 
end job discrimination, and nothing else.
  Of course, clear language will not stop opponents from misleading the 
public about the bill's intent. Many statements against it defy common 
sense and logic. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act will not 
undermine business decisions as long as employers are not 
discriminating. Recourse against sexual harassment will still exist.
  Opponents also express an unnecessary concern about the definition of 
``sexual orientation.'' As defined in our proposal, ``sexual 
orientation'' means homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, 
whether such orientation is real or perceived. This definition serves 
the same function as the definition in the Americans With Disabilities 
Act--it identifies the group of people covered by the law. As with the 
ADA, a person in the protected class cannot engage in bizarre behavior, 
must be qualified for the job, and must abide by workplace rules.
  Nothing in this legislation will prevent employers from disciplining 
homosexuals or heterosexuals whose behavior is illegal or unsafe, or 
compromises their ability to perform their job. Our proposal simply 
states that such policies must be applied fairly to all employees.
  This legislation has broad bipartisan support. Coretta Scott King 
supports it. Former Republican Senator Barry Goldwater supports this 
legislation. As Senator Goldwater has said,

       Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is a 
     real problem in our society. From coast to coast and 
     throughout the heartland, regular hardworking Americans 
     are being denied the right to roll up their sleeves and 
     earn a living. That is just plain wrong.

  Many Americans--84 percent--agree that employers should not 
discriminate based upon sexual orientation. In fact, over 600 small and 
large private businesses already have antidiscrimination policies that 
include sexual orientation.
  Nine States and one hundred sixty-six cities and counties around the 
country have laws that prohibit employment discrimination against 
homosexuals. In the Senate itself, 66 Senators have joined in pledging 
not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment in 
Senate offices.
  These are admirable steps toward eradicating discrimination. They are 
not enough. American workers deserve more than a patchwork of 
protections from discrimination. That is why the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act is so clearly needed.
  I urge the Senate to stand with Coretta Scott King and Barry 
Goldwater in support of this legislation. It is also supported by Gov. 
Christine Todd Whitman and Gov. William Weld.
  It is supported by numerous religious organizations, including the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 
the United Methodist Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, 
the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran Church in America.
  It is supported by business and civic leaders around the country. And 
it should be supported by the Senate, too. It is time to end job 
discrimination wherever it exists.
  Madam President, I will just mention the statements made by 
distinguished church leaders. Edmond L. Browning, who is the presiding 
bishop of the Episcopal Church, wrote recently to me:

       On behalf of the Episcopal Church, I am pleased to join 
     with so many distinguished figures in the religious and civil 
     rights communities in enthusiastic support of S. 932, the 
     Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996. I offer my thanks 
     to you.
       Since 1976, the Episcopal Church has been committed 
     publicly to the notion of guaranteeing equal protection for 
     all citizens, including homosexual persons, under the law. In 
     that year, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 
     the church's highest policymaking body, expressed its 
     conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal 
     protection of the laws with all other citizens and called 
     upon society to ensure that such protection is provided in 
     actuality.
       My warm embrace of this legislation, of course, reflects 
     more than my standing as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal 
     Church. It represents my deep, personal belief in the 
     intrinsic dignity of all God's children. That dignity demands 
     that all citizens have a full and equal claim upon the 
     promise of the American ideal, which includes equal civil 
     rights protection against unfair employment discrimination.

  The Reverend Riley, who is representing the Unitarian Universalist 
Association of Congregations, says:

       We are happy that the Employment Nondiscrimination Act is 
     being considered. . . . We feel this legislation would at 
     least allow Senators to show that, whatever your personal 
     convictions about the sanctity of marriage, you know that 
     there is no sanctity in discrimination.

  The letter continues on.
  The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism:

       On behalf of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and 
     the Central Conference of American Rabbis, representing 1.5 
     million Reform Jews, 1800 Reform Rabbis and 850 congregations 
     throughout the United States, I am writing to strongly urge 
     you to vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. . . .
       As a religious organization, the protection of religious 
     liberty for all Americans is of paramount concern for us. 
     ENDA gives proper regard to this concern. ENDA broadly 
     exempts from its scope any religious organization, including 
     religious educational institutions. Thus, ENDA will not 
     require sectarian institutions to violate the religious 
     precepts on which they are founded, whether or not we may 
     agree with these precepts.

  Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

       The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has committed 
     itself to participate in God's mission by ``advocating 
     dignity and justice for all people'' and ``joining with 
     others to remove the obstacles of discrimination and 
     indifference.''
       Therefore, the ELCA continues its support of the Employment 
     Nondiscrimination Act and urges your support of this 
     important initiative to extend employment discrimination 
     protection to all people.

  United Church of Christ. Rev. Jay Lintner points out:

       Please support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. The 
     Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which addresses the daily 
     discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, has 
     enormous support in our denomination.

  The Presbyterian Church, their letter says:

       The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church . . . 
     policy brings strong support to the passage of the Employment 
     Nondiscrimination Act. Historically, U.S. society has tended 
     to stigmatize and persecute gay men and lesbian and 
     bisexuals. Employment is one of the principal areas where 
     this population faces continuing discrimination. Gay persons 
     have been fired, refused work, demoted, and harassed in the 
     workplace. Persons who have experienced discrimination on the 
     basis of sexual orientation often lack recourse . . . Such 
     discrimination denies equal opportunity in the workplace . . 
     . A yes vote on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act is a 
     vote for fairness and equality.

  Not only do we have these representations of many church leaders, I 
would say many companies support our position. I will just read a 
sample of those we have listed in our presentation from across this 
country that support our position.
  The Kodak Co. says:

       Kodak's clearly stated pro-ENDA position is based on the 
     very positive results we have experienced with human resource 
     policies and practices, which are completely in alignment 
     with the intent of ENDA.
       It is our belief that only with a diverse group of highly 
     skilled people, working in a culture that enables them to 
     apply their . . . talents, will we consistently deliver the 
     greatest value to the customer . . .
       For these reasons . . . Eastman Kodak Company believes that 
     ENDA is good for American business, large and small. The bill 
     is in step with trends in the nation's most successful 
     business, and it is in tune with a fundamental sense of 
     fairness valued by Americans.

  From the Xerox Corp.:

       Discrimination of any form, against any employees, does not 
     belong in our work environment.
       We view diversity awareness and acceptance as enablers to 
     increase productivity.
       We are pleased to see your effort to enact federal 
     legislation that will prohibit employment discrimination . . 
     .

  From Microsoft:

       Microsoft seeks to empower individuals to do the best 
     possible job and to make a difference. . . .
       We commend . . . your efforts and are pleased to endorse 
     your Equal Employment Principles, which reflect our own 
     corporate policies.

  Honeywell:

       Writing in support of your Equal Employment Principles and 
     the Employment Nondiscrimination Act . . .

  AT&T--the list goes on. Hill & Knowlton, a letter to Senator D'Amato 
in strong support.
  What this basically shows is the moral issues which are raised by 
this

[[Page S9988]]

legislation, the ethical issues, the issues of fairness and decency are 
embraced by the various representatives of the great religions and also 
many of America's leading companies that have already adopted this as a 
company policy and are in very, very broad support. We have mentioned a 
number of the larger companies. We could take the time for smaller 
companies as well.
  In summary, we are saying that the problem of discrimination still 
exists today. We discuss the various studies that support that point--
an excess of 20 studies that demonstrate that this type of 
discrimination is taking place in workplaces across this country. It is 
very clear what is happening.

       Cheryl Summerville was told ``This employee is being 
     terminated due to violation of company policy. This employee 
     is gay.''

  That states it, and that is taking place in companies all across this 
country.
  Here is the statement of Barry Goldwater. Again:

       It's time America realize that there were no gay exemptions 
     in the right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
     happiness.''

  That says it all. There are no exemptions to the right to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of 
Independence.
  Anyone who cares about real moral values understands this is not 
about granting special rights. We will hear that argument over the 
course of this debate, that we are somehow providing special rights. 
This debate is about bigotry in the workplace and about prejudice in 
the workplace. This statement by Senator Goldwater captures that whole 
sense: ``It's about protecting basic rights.'' That is what this debate 
is all about.
  We know the status of similar State laws across country. There are 
nine States now that have passed laws prohibiting employment 
discrimination based on sexual orientation. They have been working, and 
working well in those nine States. But, as we say, 9 States have done 
it, 41 States have not. Some States have issued executive orders 
protecting gays and lesbians in public employment. Executive orders, as 
we all know, are here today and can be gone tomorrow.
  We have seen, in reviewing whether there has been a proliferation of 
cases during this period of time--that will be another issue discussed 
by opponents of this bill and we will be glad to debate it--that a fair 
number of charges are filed, but few actually go to the courts. My own 
State of Massachusetts, which has had a law for some period of time, 
has had two reported cases. That is the situation in so many of these 
States that are now providing this kind of protection. The courts are 
not over burdened.
  Madam President, 8 States have executive orders and 166 cities and 
counties in 37 States have passed laws prohibiting employment 
discrimination based on sexual orientation. And then we have the list 
of the various employers, large and small, that extend protection to 
their employees. By and large, we have not discovered that these laws 
and policies are an undue burden.
  Once again, to review what this does and does not do, what we are 
talking about is eliminating the discrimination and bigotry in the 
workplace, in employment. This provides there will be no quotas or 
preferential treatment. ``A covered entity shall not adopt or implement 
a quota on the basis of sexual orientation.'' That is in the bill. ``A 
covered entity shall not give preferential treatment to an individual 
on the basis of sexual orientation.'' That demonstrates that this is 
free from any affirmative action. So, no quotas, no affirmative action.

       ``No cases based merely on disparate impact claims.'' The 
     fact that employment practices have a disparate impact, as 
     the term ``disparate impact'' is used in section 708(k) of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis of sexual 
     orientation, does not establish a prima facie violation of 
     this title.

  I will not take a great deal of time, but what that demonstrates is 
that individuals cannot bring disparate impact claims as they can under 
title VII. For example, the Supreme Court has held that there can be 
women firefighters as well as men. If 100 male firefighters are 
employed and a number of women have applied, but none has been hired, 
you can conclude that there is probably an employment practice that has 
a disparate impact on qualified women firefighters.
  On the other hand, if there exists a construction company and workers 
must carry 100-pound bags of cement, and you are able to demonstrate 
the women cannot carry the 100 pounds of cement, the employer is 
probably not using an employment practice that has a disparate impact 
on women with regard to that particular job. But if you are talking 
about a computer company, women can use computers as well as men--in 
most instances, probably better. If you do not hire any female 
applicants, an individual may be able to establish a disparate impact 
charge. Those kinds of claims exist under title VII, but not under this 
bill. There will be some who will say it. We have expressed and 
explained it. We can spend more time during the course of the debate to 
get into greater detail, but that is the fact.
  There is no coverage for the armed services:

       For the purposes of this title, the term ``employment or 
     employment opportunities'' does not apply to the relationship 
     between the United States and the members of the Armed 
     Forces.

  There is no coverage for the not-for-profit religious organizations, 
except as provided in subsection (b), which is explained here. If they 
are in a for-profit business, as defined by the IRS, there will be 
coverage.
  What we are interested in are secular, not the nonsecular, 
businesses.
  Madam President, now, today, we have had 66 Senators and 241 Members 
of the House of Representatives who have agreed with the following 
principle: The sexual orientation of an individual is not a 
consideration in the hiring, promoting, or terminating of an employee 
in my office. Those are signed by Republican and Democratic Members of 
the Senate.

  Sixty-six--you would think we would be able to say, ``Well, why are 
we having this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate since Senators 
themselves understand that this is a problem and they agree that they 
are dealing with this by freeing their offices from hiring and firing 
practices on the basis of sexual orientation?''
  You would think if they are prepared to do it and recognize it is a 
problem in their own offices, then why not lend their support to other 
American workplaces, particularly if we are able to demonstrate that 
this is a real problem. We have and we will present such evidence. We 
are glad to get into the various examples that demonstrate that this is 
a real problem in terms of our country.
  So, Madam President, this is basically a preliminary presentation on 
this issue. The fact is, there is discrimination out there in the 
workplace. We have seen the studies and, most important, we have had 
the real testimony of men and women from across this country who 
continue to bear the bitter fruit of such discrimination.
  There are not adequate existing laws to protect individuals who 
experience that kind of a discrimination. This legislation is a very 
measured, targeted piece of legislation to deal with bigotry and 
discrimination in the workplace, carefully drafted, carefully targeted 
to that issue. We know that there is a need.
  We believe this is a reasonable response. It represents Republican 
and Democratic efforts to try and deal with it in the workplace of this 
country. I am very hopeful that when we have the opportunity to address 
this on the floor of the Senate with a vote on Tuesday next that we 
will be able to, once again, follow the very important and proud 
traditions of this country. Traditions rooted in the civil rights 
debates of the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties that 
led to laws freeing us from the pains of discrimination on race, on 
religion, on ethnicity, on national origin, on gender, on disability, 
and now on the issue of sexual orientation for gay men and lesbian 
women in our society.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Who yields time? The Senator 
from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act and would like to take just a few moments to 
explain my opposition to this and my concerns.
  Let me say at the outset, I do not think there is a Senator in the 
entire body of the U.S. Senate who condones

[[Page S9989]]

discrimination of any kind that is based on unreasonable and unfounded 
prejudice. I think that is a given. How we address that discrimination 
is another matter, and it is one that we have debated many times 
through the years on various facets of discrimination.
  I still recall the compelling testimony that was presented in the 
Labor Committee on this issue in the last Congress when we held a 
hearing. Nonetheless, we may still disagree on the best means of 
achieving our desired goal. Prejudice and discrimination can be fought 
in many different ways. Education and awareness are important means of 
eliminating prejudice, and so is the effort of individuals to lead by 
way of example.
  Many employers, though certainly not all--and the ranking member of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, pointed out a 
number of businesses--have led the way by example. I salute those 
businesses that have already based their employment decisions not on 
the employee's personal life or preferences but on the merits and 
abilities of the individual to perform the job.
  I share this view, but I do not believe, as I have said before, that 
we will promote greater tolerance in the workplace by relying on more 
lawsuits and litigation as this bill would require.
  True, this is not sweeping legislation as, again, Senator Kennedy 
pointed out. It is a version of the original bill that I think 
addresses some of the concerns that were originally raised. I agree 
that discrimination does exist. However, our courts are already clogged 
with cases which many times only lead to more divisiveness and 
disruption in the workplace. Relying on our legal system to resolve our 
differences can be not only counterproductive but fraught with 
unintended consequences as well.

  For this reason, Mr. President, I oppose the legislation before us. I 
know there are those who will argue that education and outreach efforts 
are not enough. Supporters of this bill will argue that the law must 
have ``teeth,'' that is, punishment for those who discriminate if it is 
ever to be effective.
  I might be more inclined to agree if the remedy or punishment for 
violating the law were merely reinstatement of one's job or simply back 
pay, as the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided. But this 
legislation provides for compensatory and punitive damages as well.
  I opposed the expansion of remedies under title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act for that very reason, and I oppose it in this case as well. 
I believe compensatory and punitive damages will only further encourage 
division and protracted lawsuits when the intent, as I see it, is to 
encourage the parties--employers and employees--to get along. I wish 
that we did not have to address this by these types of remedies. We all 
wish there was an environment in which, as Senator Goldwater said in 
his statement quoted by Senator Kennedy, everyone could be judged on 
their ability to perform their job with equal merit and equal 
recognition.
  I do not believe that this bill is the answer, because I feel we have 
involved ourselves far too much in a litigious environment in our 
workplace today, which destroys the very kind of efforts that we are 
trying to address in nondiscrimination with the legislation that is 
before us today.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as my friend and 
cosponsor desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). I introduced a bill this 
Congress with Senator Kennedy. We held a hearing in the previous 
Congress and came to the strong conclusion that the public support on 
the one hand is almost unanimous. Some 85 percent of the people support 
the concept, and second, that discrimination does go on and that it 
must have a remedy.
  I differ with the feeling of my esteemed chairman that all that is 
needed is more education and that the remedies are not needed. I point 
out also that the remedies provided for in this act are the same 
remedies that apply to all of the other acts that we have to prevent 
discrimination.
  I would like to first acknowledge the hard work of many Senators who 
have made it possible for us to debate, and next week vote on, this 
important piece of legislation. I commend the majority leader and 
minority leader for working out an arrangement which I think is fair. 
It does not give us what we had hoped for, to be very candid, that we 
could attach ENDA to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and, therefore, 
have a vehicle that might carry it on through to victory. But just 
having an opportunity to raise the issues on the Senate floor is an 
improvement over history and, thus, we must move on.
  I am very hopeful we will have a sufficient number of votes to pass 
the bill. As stated by Senator Kennedy, it also has been shown that 66 
Senators already agree in their own offices that we should not have 
such discrimination.
  I was involved with crafting this legislation during the past few 
years and was pleased to join with almost one-third of my colleagues in 
introducing ENDA in the 104th Congress. I believe this is one of the 
most important civil rights initiatives before this Congress.
  This legislation will extend to sexual orientation the same Federal 
employment discrimination protections established for race, religion, 
gender, national origin, age, and disability.
  The principles of equality and opportunity must apply to all 
Americans. Like all other Americans, gays and lesbians deserve to be 
judged at work based on their ability to do the job. People who work 
hard and perform well should not be kept from leading productive and 
responsible lives, which includes paying taxes, meeting their mortgage 
payments, and otherwise contributing to the economic life of this 
Nation because of an irrational, nonwork-related prejudice.
  Mr. President, many may be wondering if this legislation is 
necessary. Let me share with my colleagues a few examples that 
demonstrate the need for this legislation. Earlier this week at a press 
conference, I was joined by Ms. Nan Miguel, a woman who was forced to 
leave her job--not because she was a gay or lesbian--even though her 
department was short-staffed, simply because she defended her decision 
to hire another female employee who was considered by her fellow 
employees to be a lesbian. No proof. She still does not know.
  Another example is John Howard, a student from Alabama who was giving 
tours of a regional paper company's large art collection in order to 
earn graduate school tuition. A coworker told his supervisor that he 
suspected that Mr. Howard was gay. The supervisor called him in, 
acknowledged that his work was ``perfect,'' and asked him whether he 
was gay or belonged to any gay organizations. After learning that Mr. 
Howard was president of the University of Alabama Gay and Lesbian 
Alliance, the supervisor fired him. These examples and many others show 
that Congress must pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.
  Mr. President, it is not only needed, it is supported by the American 
people. And in a recent poll, well over three-quarters of the 
respondents stated that there should be equal rights for Americans, 
including gays and lesbians, on the job. While ENDA will achieve this 
goal for job opportunity, it does not do so by creating any special 
rights for gays and lesbians.
  Specifically, this legislation prohibits preferential treatment, 
including quotas, based on sexual orientation, and also does not 
require an employer to justify a neutral practice that may have a 
statistically disparate impact. This a very complicated area of the law 
and one which is very difficult for employers to meet. It does not 
apply to this. Rather, it simply protects a right which should belong 
to every American, the right to be free from discrimination at work 
because of personal characteristics unrelated to successful performance 
on the job.
  Securing this right benefits businesses as well as individuals. As 
Chad Gifford, CEO of the Bank of Boston, said recently:

       . . . there are compelling business reasons why we support 
     ENDA and the workforce diversity it will engender. We want to 
     see ENDA approved because we believe that it will help us as 
     we advance a competitive business strategy--a strategy that 
     not only

[[Page S9990]]

     embraces diversity, but also depends on it and takes full 
     advantage of it.

  Many other businesses have joined the Bank of Boston in adopting 
similar sexual orientation antidiscrimination policies. In fact, over 
half of the Fortune 500 companies have such policies.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of employers with nondiscrimination policies that include sexual 
orientation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Employers With Non-Discrimination Policies That Include Sexual 
                   Orientation--As of August 16, 1996


                                alabama

       Intergraph, SCI Systems, America West Airlines, Arizona 
     State University, and Bashas' Incorporated.


                                 alaska

       University of Alaska.


                               california

       AST Research, Acuson, Advanced Micro Devices, Agouron 
     Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Amdahl, American President, Amgen, 
     Antioch University (Southern California), Apple Computer, 
     Atlantic Richfield, Autodesk, Avery Dennison, Bank of 
     California, Bay View Federal Bank, Bergen Brunswig, Borland 
     International, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, California 
     Institute of Technology, California State University, Charles 
     Schwab & Company, Chevron, Cisco Systems, Claremont McKenna 
     College, Claris, Clorox, Cypress Semiconductor, Del Monte 
     Foods, Dole Food, First Interstate Bancorp, Fluor Daniel, 
     Foundation Health, Gap, Genentch, Glendale Federal Bank, 
     Golden West Financial, Graham & James, Great Western 
     Financial, H.F. Ahmanson & Company, Harvey Mudd College, 
     Health Systems International, Heller, Ehrman, White & 
     McAuliffe, Hewlett-Packard, Homestake Mining, Intel, 
     International Technology, Kaiser-Permanente, LSI Logic, 
     Latham & Watkins, Levi Strauss & Company, Los Angeles Times, 
     MCA Universal Studios, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, 
     McKesson, Merisel, Morrison & Foerster, National Center for 
     Lesbian Rights, NeXT Computer, O'Melveny & Meyers, Occidental 
     Petroleum, Oracle, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Pacific 
     Enterprises, Pacific Mutual Life, Pacific Telesis Group, 
     Pacificare Health Systems, Paul, Hatings, Janofsky & Walker, 
     Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Pitzer College, Pomona College, 
     Qual Comm, SCE, Safeco, Safeway, San Diego Gas & Electric, 
     San Diego State University, San Francisco Giants, Science 
     Applications International, Scripps College, Silicon 
     Graphics, Southern Pacific Rail, Stanford University, Sun 
     Microsystems, Sybase, Tandem Computers, Teledyne, Tenent 
     HealthCare, Transamerica, Ungermann-Bass, Varian 
     Associates, Walt Disney, Watkins-Johnson, Wells Fargo & 
     Company, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Working 
     Assets Funding Service, and Wynn's International.


                                Colorado

       Adolph Coors, Amrion, Celestial Seasonings, Colorado 
     College, Compatible Systems, Quark, Storage Technology Tenet 
     Healthcare Systems, and US West.


                              Connecticut

       Caldor, Deloitte and Touche, Dexter, Louis Dreyfus North 
     American, Northeast Utilities, OLIN, People's Bank, Perkin-
     Elmer, Pitney Bowes, State Universities of Connecticut, Union 
     Carbide, United States Surgical, United Technologies, 
     University of Connecticut, University of Hartford, and Xerox.


                          District of Columbia

       AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union, American Postal 
     Workers Union AFL-CIO, American Psychological Association, 
     American University, Catholic University of America, 
     Covington & Burling, GEICO, Hogan & Hartson, Howrey & Simon, 
     Human Rights Campaign, MCI Communications, Marriott, McKenne 
     & Cuneo, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
     National Black Caucus of State Legislators, National Gay & 
     Lesbian Task Force, National Public Radio, Presbyterian 
     Church (USA), Riggs National, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & 
     Flom, Southerland, Asbil & Breenan, Washington Post, Wilmer, 
     Cutler & Pickering, and World Resources Institute.


                                Delaware

       E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.

                                florida

       AAA, Eckerd College, Knight-Ridder, Office Depot, Ryder 
     System, Tech Data, and University of South Florida.


                                georgia

       AFLAC, BellSouth Telecommunications, Coca-Cola, Crawford 
     and Company, Emory University, Georgia Southern University, 
     Georgia Tech, Home Depot, Turner Broadcasting System, 
     University of Georgia, and WORLDSPAN.


                                 hawaii

       Hawaiian Electric Industries, Alexander and Baldwin, Bank 
     of Hawaii, and University of Hawaii.


                                 idaho

       Albertson's and Morrison Knudsen.


                                illinois

       Abbott Laboratories, Alberto-Culver, Ameritech, Amoco, 
     Andersen Consulting, Aon, Baker & McKenzie, Baxter 
     International, CNA, Chicago School of Professional 
     Psychology, Columbia College, Comdisco, Commerce Clearing 
     House, Commonwealth Edison, Datalogics Equipment, Fireman's 
     Insurance, First Chicago NBD, Harrington Institute of 
     Interior Design, Harris Trust & Savings Bank, Hinshaw & 
     Culbertson, Illinois Eastern University, Illinois 
     Northeastern University, Illinois Northern University, 
     Illinois Southern University, Illinois State University, 
     Illinois Tool Works, Inland Steel Industries, Jenner & Block, 
     Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Kirkland & Ellis, 
     Mayer, Brown & Platt, Motorola, Navistar International, 
     Quaker Oats, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Sara Lee, Schiff, Hardin 
     & Waite, School of the Arts Institute, Sears, Roebuck & 
     Company, Servicemaster, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & 
     Geraldson, Sidley & Austin, Speigel, UAL, Unicom, United 
     Airlines, University of Chicago, W.W. Grainger, Walgreen, 
     Winston & Strawn, and Zenith.


                                Indiana

       Anthem, Arvin Industries, Eli Lilly & Company, Goshen 
     College, Lincoln National, and Methodist Hospital of 
     Indianapolis.


                                  Iowa

       Drake University, Grinnell College, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and 
     Principal Mutual Life Insurance.


                                 Kansas

       University of Kansas and V.T.


                                Kentucky

       Ashland Petroleum, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Providian.


                               Louisiana

       Hibernia National Bank.


                                 Maine

       Bates College, Bowdoin College, Colby College, Hannaford 
     Brothers, and UNUM.


                                Maryland

       Baltimore Gas and Electric, Giant Food, Piper & Marbury, 
     Prince George's Community College, and Workmens Circle Branch 
     92/494E.


                             Massachusetts

       Amherst College, Babson College, Bank of Boston, Banyan 
     Systems, Boston Edison Company, Boston Scientific, Brandeis 
     University, Children's Hospital of Boston, Digital Equipment, 
     Eastern Enterprises, Eastern Utilities Associates, Gillette, 
     Hale and Door, Hampshire College, Harvard University, Hotel 
     Workers Union--Local 26, International Data, Keyport Life, 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Mutual 
     Life, Millipore, New England Electric Systems, Polaroid, 
     Reebok, Reebok International, Ropes & Gray, Stop & Shop, 
     Stratus Computer, TJ Maxx, WGBH Public Television, and 
     Wainwright Bank.


                                Michigan

       Alma College, CMS Energy, Comerica, Dow Chemical, Herman 
     Miller, Kellogg, Pharmacia & Upjohn, and Tecumseh Products.


                               minnesota

       Apogee Enterprises, Bemis, Carleton College, Ceridan, 
     Control Data Systems, Cray Research, Dayton Hudson, Faegre & 
     Benson, First Bank System, Graco, H.B. Fuller, Hormel Foods, 
     IDS Financial Services, Medtronic, Minnesota Mining and 
     Manufacturing (3M), Minnesota Public Radio, Nash Finch, 
     Northern States Power, Norwest, Piper Jaffray Companies, St. 
     Paul Companies, Supervalu, United Healthcare, and University 
     of Minnesota.


                                Missouri

       Boatmen's Banchares, H & R Block, Payless Cashways, and 
     Ralston Purina.


                             new hampshire

       Antioch University (New England), Dartmouth University, 
     Eastern Mountain Sports, Franklin Pierce Law Center, Hendrix 
     Wire and Cable, Hubbard Farms, Huggins Hospital, Keene State 
     College, Nashua, New England College, Plymouth State College, 
     and University of New Hampshire.


                               new jersey

       Allied Signal, Becton Dickinson, Campbell Soup, Chubb, 
     Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Midlantic Bank, Public 
     Service Enterprise Group, Sequent Compuyter Systems, 
     Supermarkets General, Toys R Us, UJB Financial, and Warner-
     Lambert.


                               New Mexico

       University of New Mexico.


                                New York

       AVENET, Amerada Hess, American Express, American Telephone 
     & Telegraph Company, AnnTaylor Stores, Arrow Electronics, 
     Bank of New York Company, Bankers Trust New York, Barnard 
     College, Bear Stearns, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Brooklyn 
     College, Brooklyn Union Gas, CBS, CMP Publications, 
     Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Capital Cities/ABC, Chadhourne 
     & Parke, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Banking, Citicorp, 
     Clarkson University, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 
     Colgate Palmolive, Columbia University, Cornell 
     University, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Dean Witter, Dewey 
     Ballantine, Dow Jones, Fordham University School of Law, 
     Hill & Knowlton, Hunter College, ITT, International 
     Business Machines, International Paper, J.P. Morgan, 
     Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Kaye, Scholer, Fireman, Hays & 
     Handler, Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, 
     Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & 
     MacRae, Lesbian and Gay Labor Network, Long Island 
     Lighting, Metropolitan Life, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & 
     McCloy, Mutual of New York, National Audubon Society, New 
     York Life Insurance, New York Times, New York University, 
     Niagara Mohawk Power, OMI, Ogden, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 
     Wharton & Garrison, Philip Morris, Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of

[[Page S9991]]

     America, Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P., 
     Republic NY, Rogers & Wells, Salomon Brothers, Scholastic, 
     Shearman & Sterling, Showtime Networks, Skadden, Arps, 
     Slate, Meagher & Flom, Stanley H. Kaplan Educational 
     Center, Stroock, Stroock & Lavan, Sullivan & Cromwell, 
     TIA-CREF, The Equitable Companies, Time Warner, Towers 
     Parrin, Travelers Group, University of Buffalo, Viacom, 
     Village Voice, Westvaco, Whitman Breed Abbott & Morgan, 
     Woolworth, and Ziff-Davis Publishing.


                                 nevada

       Showboat.


                             north carolina

       Appalachian State University, Body Shop, Duke University, 
     First Union, and Guilford College.


                                  ohio

       American Electric Power, Antioch College, Banc One, Case 
     Western Reserve University, Cinergy, Federated Department 
     Stores, Macy's (formerly Jordan Marsh), Myers Industries, 
     Oberlin College, Procter & Gamble, Revco Drug Stores, The 
     Limited, University of Akron, University of Cincinnati, 
     and Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.


                                 oregon

       Fred Meyer, Pacificorp, Portland Cable Access, Portland 
     General, Stoel Rives L.L.P., Tektronix, and US Bancorp.


                              pennsylvania

       Air Products & Chemicals, American Friends Service 
     Committee, Armstrong World Industries, Ballard, Spahr, 
     Andrews & Ingersoll, Bell Atlantic, Bloomsburg University, 
     Bucknell University, Carnegie Group, Carnegie Mellon 
     University, Cigna, Clarion University, Conrail, Consolidated 
     Natural Gas, CoreStates Financial, Crown Cork & Seal, 
     Dickinson College, Drew University, Drexel University, 
     Edinboro University, Harsco, Haverford College, Kirkpatrick & 
     Lockhart, Lehigh University, Lukens, Mellon Bank, PECO 
     Energy, Penn Mutual Life Insurance, Pennsylvania Power and 
     Light, Pennsylvania State University, Pepper, Hamilton & 
     Scheetz, Rite Aid, SmithKline Beecham, State College, 
     Swarthmore College, Temple University, Unisys, University of 
     Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, VF, and York 
     International.


                              rhode island

       Brown University.


                             south carolina

       Flagstar.


                              south dakota

       Gateway 2000.


                               tennessee

       OrNda Health.


                                 texas

       AMR, American Airlines, Central & South West, Dallas Area 
     Rapid Transit, Dell Computer, Exxon, Foxmeyer Health, 
     Greyhound, SBC Communications, Southwestern Bell, Tandy, and 
     Temple-Inland.


                                virginia

       Federal Home Loan Mortgage, First Virginia Bank, Gannett, 
     General Dynamics, Hunton & Williams, Mobil, and USAir Group.


                                vermont

       Ben and Jerry's Homemade and Gardener's Supply.


                               washington

       Antioch University (Seattle), Evergreen State College, Fred 
     Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Group Health Cooperative 
     of Puget Sound, Nordstrom, Paccar, Perkins Coie, Price/
     Costco, Recreational Equipment Inc (REI), SAFECO, Seattle 
     City Light, Seattle First National Bank, Seattle Mental 
     Health Institute, Seattle Public Library, Seattle Times, 
     Starbucks Coffee, University of Washington, Washington 
     Mutual, Washington State University, and Weyerhaeuser.


                               Wisconsin

       CUNA Mutual Insurance Group, Consolidated Papers, Harley 
     Davidson, Johnson Controls, Northwestern Mutual Life 
     Insurance, Roundy's, Wisconsin Energy, and YWCA of Greater 
     Milwaukee.
       Partial list; Fortune 500 in italic.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. In today's global economy our Nation must take full 
advantage of every resource that is at our disposal. We want U.S. 
companies to maintain their competitive advantage over their 
international competitors. This statement from Mr. Gifford, combined 
with the fact that a majority of the Fortune 500 companies have 
incorporated many of ENDA's policies, clearly indicates that these 
changes will not disrupt but improve the workplace. At this time in our 
country when we are short of skilled workers, we should not have 
anything that bars those skilled workers from an opportunity to have a 
job to assist us in our society.
  Mr. President, some concerns have been raised by my colleagues that 
passing ENDA will create a new wave of litigation. I am proud to say 
that my home State of Vermont is one of several States and localities 
that have enacted a sexual orientation antidiscrimination law. It is no 
surprise to me that the sky has not fallen. Since the enactment of 
Vermont's law in 1991, 5 years ago, the Vermont attorney general has 
initiated only 14 investigations of alleged sexual orientation 
discrimination. Six are pending at this time. Four have been closed 
with determinations that unlawful discrimination cannot be proven to 
have occurred. Three have been closed for miscellaneous administrative 
reasons unrelated to the charge, and one resulted in a settlement.
  There has been no huge litigation involved in Vermont. It has little 
or no burden when you figure how many that is per year, about three a 
year in the State. In addition, I am not aware of a single complaint 
from Vermont employers about the enforcement of the State law. However, 
I do know that thousands of Vermonters no longer need to live and work 
in the shadows. Vermont's experience is not unique. Other States and 
the District of Columbia have implemented policies similar to the one 
of my home State of Vermont with similar results.
  As I have stated before, success at work should be related to one's 
ability to do the job and nothing else. The passage of ENDA would be 
one step toward ensuring the ability of all people, be they gay, 
lesbian or heterosexual, to be fairly judged on the work product, not 
on unrelated personal characteristics. Passage of ENDA could be perhaps 
one of the most important things this Senate could do this year.
  Let me go back and summarize again and to straighten out some of the 
misconceptions regarding ENDA. First of all, this legislation does not 
create any special rights. Specifically, this legislation prohibits 
preferential treatment, including quotas based on sexual orientation. 
It simply protects a right that should belong to every American, the 
right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal 
characteristics unrelated to successful performance in the job.
  I also would like to point out that we have gone and looked at those 
areas which do create difficulties for business, areas which might lead 
to litigation. And for the reasons of those that hold a fear of that 
litigation, we have not provided all of the protections to sexual 
orientation that race, religion, gender and others have. ENDA, for 
instance, does provide for the same remedies--injunctive relief and 
damages--permitted under title VII and the Americans With Disabilities 
Act and also does apply to Congress with the same remedies as provided 
by the Congressional Accountability Act.
  This last application is very important to me because I believe it is 
very important that Congress not only live with the laws we pass, but I 
feel it is very important that an example should be set by Congress 
that gays and lesbians should not only be allowed to contribute to the 
economic life of the Nation but the political one as well. I once again 
point out that we have 66 offices that have already accomplished this.
  More importantly, for the specific areas that have created problems 
for employers, ENDA does not require an employer to justify a neutral 
practice that may have a substantial disparate impact based on sexual 
orientation. That means you do not have to prove by figures that you 
have hired enough gays and lesbians to show that you have complied with 
the law. Let me state again that ENDA does not require that. That 
requirement would be very difficult to meet. ENDA exempts small 
businesses, as do existing civil rights statutes. Thus, it does not 
apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees.
  Finally, ENDA does not require an employer to provide benefits for 
the same-sex partner of an employee. This is a requirement which would 
be problematical for many.
  So we have done everything we believe we can do to reduce the amount 
of litigation, to reduce the amount of concern of employers, and 
certainly small businesses, and as we do in other areas, to prevent any 
real burden on close working situations.
  As I have stated before, a successful workplace should be directly 
related only to one's ability to do the job, period. The passage of 
ENDA would be one step toward ensuring the ability of gays, lesbians, 
and heterosexuals to be fairly judged on their work product, not on an 
unrelated personal characteristic. Passing ENDA could perhaps be one of 
the most important things this Congress could do.
  Once again, I am pleased that we have this opportunity, and I want to

[[Page S9992]]

thank, again, the majority and minority leaders for the system that has 
been set up to allow us to get a straight vote on this issue, and I 
look toward the day we succeed in getting ENDA enacted into law. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator 
from Utah would like to have.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation. The bill before 
the Senate has vast ramifications. This bill represents a massive 
increase in Federal power. For example, Federal bureaucrats, Federal 
courts, and plaintiffs' lawyers will be given enormous new sway over 
our Nation's private employers, as well as State and local governments. 
This bill will be, if it passes and becomes law, a litigation bonanza.
  I think I have a reputation around here as supporting civil rights 
legislation. I do not want to see any discrimination against anybody in 
our society. As the coauthor of the AIDS bill, as the coauthor of the 
Hate Crimes Statistics Act, and other bills, I think my reputation is 
that of someone who decries discrimination in any form in our society. 
However, this bill, in my opinion, is the wrong way to go.
  Moreover, notwithstanding ineffective language in the bill, Federal 
bureaucrats at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, lawyers at 
the Department of Justice, along with plaintiffs' lawyers in Federal 
courts, will open up an entirely new category of preferences and 
reverse discrimination. This new category, make no mistake about it, 
will be based on sexual orientation. The moral and religious 
sensibilities of millions of Americans will be overridden if this 
legislation comes to pass and is enacted into law.
  Let me turn to each point, starting with the vast increase in Federal 
Government power created by this bill. Mr. President, I respectfully 
submit that a vote for this bill is a vote to give the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission the power to require employers to provide the 
Government with data on the sexual orientation of their employees. 
Today, under title VII, the EEOC asks numerous employers to provide 
statistics on the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of their work 
forces and new hires.
  Let me stress, so that no one is misled by the bill's section on 
disparate impact, that statistics on the composition of a work force 
are not used just in disparate impact cases. These statistics are 
frequently used to prove cases of intentional discrimination on the 
basis of race, ethnicity, and gender, including pattern and practice 
cases.
  Section 11 of the bill grants to the EEOC ``with respect to the 
administration and enforcement of this act'' the same power the EEOC 
has to administer and enforce title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
The EEOC, the Department of Justice, and plaintiffs' lawyers, will be 
able to use such statistics on the sexual orientation of employees at a 
particular workplace in proving cases of intentional sexual orientation 
discrimination under this bill. As I mentioned earlier, these would 
include pattern and practice cases that the Federal Government is now 
able to bring against employers under title VII.
  Here is what is authorized by this bill: someone alleges that he or 
she was denied a job because of the complainant's homosexuality. The 
Federal Government investigates. Perhaps there is evidence that a 
supervisor in the personnel office made statements expressing 
disapproval of homosexuality. Perhaps the Department of Justice or the 
EEOC received similar complaints from one or two other job applicants. 
The appropriate Federal agency could then turn to the statistical 
profile of that employer's work force and recent hires. If there are no 
homosexuals in that work force, or virtually none, if all or almost all 
recent homosexual job applicants were denied a job, those statistics 
can be used by the Government, or in a private lawsuit, as evidence of 
intentional discrimination.
  I hope that no Senator is under the misimpression that the use of 
statistical evidence in so-called underrepresentation cases is 
forbidden by this bill. This bill authorizes, indeed invites, the use 
of statistics based on sexual orientation by its grant to the EEOC of 
authority that it now has under title VII. Now some might ask, would 
the EEOC really seek such statistics? My answer is that EEOC is part of 
the very same bureaucracy which presently makes heavy use of statistics 
under title VII, and which played so crucial a role in the creation of 
preferences and reverse discrimination under that statute.

  Let me give one more example of the vast power this bill gives to the 
Federal bureaucracy and the Federal courts. Under title VII, harassment 
in the workplace on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion 
is forbidden, and properly so. If this bill becomes law, what is going 
to happen if a supervisor, based on religious or moral beliefs, 
expresses disapproval of homosexuality and there are homosexual 
employees in that workplace? What is going to happen if one or more 
employees express such views and supervisors are aware of those 
investigations and do nothing about them? The answer is there will 
likely be a lawsuit claiming a hostile work environment exists which 
adversely affects homosexual employees. However that lawsuit is 
resolved, think of the new costs imposed on our Nation's employers in 
dealing with these new lawsuits. It is bad enough under the current 
law.
  Mr. President, it is also certain that reverse discrimination and 
preferences will result from this bill. Some will ask, how can that be? 
The bill says ``a covered entity shall not give preferential treatment 
to an individual on the basis of sexual orientation.'' That is in 
section 7. But the bill says something more. The bill gives Federal 
courts ``The same jurisdiction and powers as such courts have to 
enforce title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' That is in section 
11(a)5. Further, ``The procedures and remedies available for a title 
VII violation'' are available under this bill, and that is section 
11(b)1.
  Now, let us take a look at section 706(g) of title VII. That 
provision of title VII says that if the court finds that an employer 
intentionally discriminated, the court may enjoin such discrimination 
``and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate or any other 
equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.'' Now, Mr. President, 
if you only read this bill, you will miss the powers this bill grants 
to the Federal Judiciary, including those pertaining to affirmative 
action are not evidence.
  We all know, Mr. President, regrettably, that the Supreme Court has 
construed section 706(g) of title VII to permit Federal courts in 
limited circumstances of persistent egregious, intentional 
discrimination to impose preferences as remedies in title VII cases. I 
have said the preferences are never appropriate as a remedy. But the 
same remedies under title VII will be available under this bill. 
Preferences on the basis of sexual orientation will be imposed when 
Federal courts think that an employer has intentionally discriminated 
in a persistent and egregious way, and whether we agree with this view 
or not, many employers have very strong religiously based/morally based 
objections to homosexuality which they may reflect in their employment 
practices that could well give rise to remedial orders of a 
preferential way in a number exceeding that which we have seen under 
title VII.
  Further, the Supreme Court has told us that a consent decree pursuant 
to a statute is part contract and part enforcement of the statute 
itself. The Federal agencies which bring the lawsuits under this bill 
have enormous leverage. These cases are very costly to defend, make no 
mistake. These agencies, as well as plaintiffs' lawyers in private 
cases, will also be able to extract consent decrees containing 
preferential relief from employers because the employers paid then 
because it is too expensive to fight them.
  Section 7 of this bill does not order the analysis. It does not limit 
a court's remedial power. Title VII has a similar provision, yet the 
Supreme Court told us the remedial authority of the courts are governed 
by section 706(g).
  The proponents of this bill can make the very same statement that our 
revered late colleague and dear friend of mine, Senator Hubert 
Humphrey, made during debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act in response 
to concerns expressed about preferences and quotas. He said

[[Page S9993]]

he would eat the pages of the Congressional Record, one after the 
other, if someone could show him where these preferences are in title 
VII. Within 5 years after the enactment of that act, Federal agencies 
and courts had misused title VII to create preferences, something the 
prime sponsor of that bill said could not occur. The very same agencies 
will enforce this bill on sexual orientation, under virtually identical 
provisions. So if the proponents of this bill want to tell the Senate 
the same thing our dear colleague Senator Humphrey told the Senate in 
1964, I have no doubt that someday I will be sending them a copy of 
today's Congressional Record, together with a knife and fork and 
something to wash down the pages.
  I might add this, that a plaintiff's ability to use statistics to 
prove intentional discrimination is going to be a powerful silent 
incentive to employers to hire by the numbers on the basis of sexual 
orientation, in order to avoid these lawsuits.
  Mr. President, let me make one more point on affirmative action under 
this bill. There are forms of remedial affirmative action under title 
VII that I do support. For example, I believe it is appropriate for 
employers to be required to recruit and advertise to increase the 
applicant pool for members of such groups.
  This is a fairly routine remedy. Under this bill, an employer who 
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation against homosexuals 
will likely be required to undertake such recruitment, such as by 
advertising among homosexual groups and media outlets. Should we be 
imposing this requirement on employers in the matter of sexual 
orientation? I do not think so.
  Let me note, Mr. President, that many employers have honest moral, 
religious-based objections to hiring homosexuals. These are views that 
should not be dismissed. I will mention one example. The July 19, 1996, 
Washington Post reported that a Loudoun County teacher and coach had 
starred in gay pornographic videos. This person had a job teaching 
health and physical education at Farmwell Station Middle School in 
Ashburn, VA. He was also an assistant coach for boys football, 
baseball, and wrestling at a high school.
  Loudoun School Superintendent Edgar B. Hatrick III said if the 
allegations were true, he would seek to fire the teacher. He noted, 
``We believe that teachers, as people who are chosen to be instructors 
as well as leaders of our young people, should be exemplary in their 
professional as well as personal lives. What we have here is an 
allegation of a lifestyle that is not in keeping with that. If the 
allegations are true, that is not conduct befiting a teacher.''
  I suspect that the principal would have taken the same attitude if it 
had been a pornographic movie starring a heterosexual teacher, and 
rightfully so.
  One parent of a daughter who attended a school where this person 
taught said she believed that what people do in their private lives is 
their business--unless they are teachers. ``I want our teachers to have 
the highest moral fiber. I'm not comfortable with him doing both.'' A 
school board member said, ``Here we have a teacher in a middle school 
working with children who are at that age where they are struggling 
with their * * * identity. This is obviously a person who has made bad 
choices. To give someone like this access to children at that stage of 
development would be irresponsible of us.''
  Mr. President, those views are overridden by this bill. And even if 
one disagrees with these school officials and parents, as the 
proponents of this bill may do, is it appropriate for this Senate to 
run roughshod over their concerns? I know the supporters of this bill, 
including President Clinton who has strongly endorsed it, are sincere.
  In particular, I have worked very closely in the past with my friend, 
Senator Kennedy, on these matters. I have tried to be with him where I 
believe he is correct, and he has tried to be with me where he believes 
I have been correct.
  But the people in Loudoun County and millions of other Americans who 
agree with them are also sincere.
  Mr. President, in the version of this bill introduced last night, 
section 10 states that a covered employer can enforce rules ``regarding 
nonprivate sexual conduct, if such rules of conduct are designed for, 
and uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of sexual 
orientation.'' This provision provides little help to the people of 
Loudoun County and across this country who have similar concerns. Its 
fundamental flaw is that in order to enforce rules under this section, 
homosexuality and heterosexuality must be treated entirely alike.
  Suppose a male teacher kisses his female spouse goodbye in front of 
the schoolchildren in the morning as she drops him off at school. Some 
might find such warmth and affection between husband and wife a good 
thing for the children to see. But Loudoun County would have to fire 
that male teacher before this bill would permit the county to fire a 
male teacher for kissing his male partner in front of the children at 
school. Or, suppose a single male teacher, during nonschool hours and 
in public, holds hands, walks arm in arm with his girlfriend, and 
engages in some kissing. I can well understand if the school 
authorities do not find that public behavior a matter for discipline. 
Under this bill, however, these same school authorities could not take 
action against a male teacher who engages in the very same public 
actions I just mentioned, with another male. I think that forcing 
Loudoun County to treat both situations the same, in terms of role 
models for schoolchildren and the other concerns parents and educators 
might have, is wrong.
  Mr. President, let me note some of the other flaws in the bill. The 
bill says it does not apply to the Armed Forces, defined as the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. But the bill would 
apply to other elements of our military structure, such as the National 
Guard. Moreover, if the proponents of the bill think the military 
should be exempt, why didn't they exempt State and local police 
departments, and other law enforcement agencies at the local, State, 
and Federal levels? These are paramilitary organizations. They deal 
with domestic threats to the peace and our security. If some of the 
forces that deal with foreign threats to the peace and our security are 
exempted from the bill, why shouldn't the domestic law enforcement 
agencies be treated the same way? I might add that in many States 
homosexual conduct is illegal, by statute or common law, yet this bill 
would compel the law enforcement agencies in those States to hire 
individuals who are acknowledged to engage in such conduct.
  Let me also say that my support for the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 
which Senator Simon and I have gotten through the Senate and enacted 
into law twice, is fully consistent with my position on this bill. My 
view that absolutely no one should be subjected to violence or 
vandalism because of who they are is, of course, widely shared. But it 
does not follow from the fact that while everyone, including 
homosexuals, should be free of violence, society must confer 
affirmative civil protections on the basis of sexual orientation not 
available, I might add, to everyone else.
  I would urge President Clinton to reconsider his support of this 
bill. I don't think we would be taking it up today if he wasn't such a 
strong backer of the bill. I don't think it would have a chance of 
passage if he opposed the bill, a bill which has so many noticeable 
flaws.
  Mr. President, those are just some of my feelings with regard to this 
bill. I have watched these EEOC applications of title VII and the court 
applications of title VII for many years. I believe that I have spoken 
the truth here about what really is happening, what has happened, and 
what will happen if this bill is passed. It would lead to a bonanza of 
litigation that would be second to none in the history of this country, 
and I think, frankly, that it is not in the best interest of the 
country, and would be used to trample right over the rights of many 
people who have sincerely held religious views about the matter.
  Mr. President, I may have some more to say about this bill later.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I know others want to speak, but I want to address 
briefly the issue of remedies that has been referred to by my 
colleagues who have

[[Page S9994]]

stated their opposition to this legislation--both their concern about 
the additional burden on the courts and also on the issues of remedies.
  I think we can look at the nine States that currently have virtually 
the same kind of law that we are proposing. Most of them have some form 
of an equal employment commission in their various States.
  I will include this in the Record.
  To talk about the number of cases that have been brought in the State 
court system, in Wisconsin they passed a law similar to this in 1982. 
They have had one reported case between 1982 and 1993. In California, 
since 1992, they have had five reported cases. In my own State of 
Massachusetts, we have had two reported cases since 1989; Minnesota, 
since 1991, three reported cases; New Jersey, since 1991, zero reported 
cases; Vermont, since 1991, one reported case; Connecticut, since 1991, 
they have had four reported cases; Hawaii, since 1991, zero reported 
cases; Rhode Island, since 1991, zero reported cases.
  What we have seen since this law was passed is not the kind of 
proliferation of cases. What we are seeing is compliance.
  Finally, let me just say with regard to remedies, I remind our 
colleagues that in the remedies section, as has been pointed out by 
Senator Jeffords, we are basically tracking title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act, and we are talking about the 1991 Civil Rights Act. 
Therefore, the damages are capped. They do not cap them on the basis of 
race. They do not cap them in terms of religious discrimination or 
national origin. They cap them solely on gender--women--the disabled, 
and now on gay and lesbians. We put a cap on them.
  I would like to believe, if we are talking about discrimination that 
is taking place against American citizens, we would apply remedies 
fairly to all victims of discrimination. But nonetheless, currently, 
women and the disabled and, when this legislation becomes law, gays and 
lesbians, are held to a second-class standard in terms of remedies. 
With all due respect to those who are complaining about remedies, we 
already included a cap to gain support. We are not altering or changing 
that.
  Third, I advise my good friend from Utah to review the legislation. 
There is no requirement in this legislation that any company has to 
keep statistics--his admonition that we have to be concerned because of 
disparate impact claims is without merit. Disparate impact claims are 
specifically excluded. Statistics are not necessary. So I have 
difficulty in following the logic of his comment.
  Basically, what we are talking about is this, Mr. President:

       People like Cheryl Summerville who received a notice that 
     said, ``This employee is being terminated due to violation of 
     company policy. This employee is gay.''

  That is what we are talking about. We are talking about blatant, 
flagrant discrimination and bigotry that exists in our country that 
some States have identified. That is what is at issue. That is what we 
are addressing. We obviously welcome the opportunity to take various 
recommendations or suggestions about how to make it better.
  The final point I make, Mr. President, is that I heard my colleague 
say that a lot of people have strong religious beliefs not to associate 
with homosexuals. We went through a period not long ago when a lot of 
people had moral beliefs, ethical beliefs not to associate with blacks, 
Latinos or Asian-Americans, and basically what civil rights laws have 
stood for is that individuals cannot use those beliefs in order to 
discriminate against fellow Americans. That is the basis of the civil 
rights laws that exist to address the issues of discrimination on race, 
on religion, on ethnicity, on national origin, on gender and 
disability. All we are attempting to do is to extend it.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, and the others mentioned earlier, I 
hope we can move forward with the legislation.
  I see my friend, the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, could I just answer the Senator?
  If the distinguished chairman will yield 2 minutes to me, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Keep in mind the Senator just got through equating 
homosexuality with race, which is exactly what is going to happen 
should this legislation pass.
  Mr. President, I might add that the experience under State law that 
he refers to is largely irrelevant. Experience under State law cited by 
my friend from Massachusetts, in my opinion, is irrelevant. I cited the 
remedial provision of title VII, section 706(g), which gives Federal 
courts the power to award affirmative action relief. That is extremely 
different from the State statutes with regard to this.
  The Supreme Court has said in some cases preferential relief can be 
granted. The Court said that consent decrees with preferential relief 
may be entered. Since the bill does incorporate section 706(g), the 
same thing is going to happen here. It opens up a massive Federal role 
in employment matters with regard to gay and lesbian people.
  I have to say I am uncomfortable with both sides on the issue because 
I think the bill is not written well. I think it does not solve these 
problems. It will lead to tremendous Federal Government control over 
the employer workplace throughout the country, and I think it will lead 
to the same sort of sets of preferences that we see today under title 
VII that were said could never happen.
  These are some of the things that bother me. On the other hand, I do 
not want to see gay and lesbian people discriminated against. But I 
just heard my colleague from Massachusetts equate homosexuality with 
race by saying the churches have had to comply with the Civil Rights 
Act. That is true. On the other hand, he excludes churches in here but 
not the profitmaking aspects of the church, of the particular churches 
involved, which may include publication, it may include running 
facilities for the benefit of their members, it may include any number 
of other situations that may be considered profitmaking. Yet the 
particular religious belief may be such that it condemns homosexual 
conduct and sincerely does so and does so as a right of that religious 
institution, longstanding religious institutions in some cases, highly 
recognized, mainstream churches that have doctrines and principles that 
condemn homosexual conduct, and yet it would require them to have to 
comply with this law as it is written, and I believe in ways that will 
be very similar, no question about it, in ways that will be exactly 
like the requisites of title VII today.
  As Gen. Colin Powell so eloquently stated in a May 1992 letter to 
Representative Pat Schroeder defending restrictions on homosexuals in 
the military, he said:

       Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual 
     orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral 
     characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but 
     invalid argument.

  I think he makes a good point. I do not think there is any question 
about it.
  This bill gives the EEOC the same power to administer and enforce 
this bill as the EEOC has under title VII. Under title VII, the EEOC 
collects statistics. It is in the regulations in 29 CFR, subpart A, B, 
and C. So to compare this with the States and the fact that there may 
be a dearth of suits under State law belies the fact that under Federal 
law there will be a proliferation of suits and I think testing of this 
matter all over the country, and I do not know that you will have any 
choice other than to apply the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted 
section 7 in bygone days and bygone ages. If that is the case, you are 
going to have, I think, an awful lot of difficulty in our society and 
especially among religious institutions and others that take highly 
moral views of these matters that I think will be very disruptive to 
our country.
  Having said that, I would like to continue to explore a way, some way 
of encouraging people in our country to be fair to gays and lesbians in 
our society. I do not think anybody should be discriminated against. On 
the other hand, these Federal statutes have sometimes resulted in 
discrimination against people who have sincerely held beliefs, 
religious or otherwise, that I think are valid.

[[Page S9995]]

  So having said that, I do not see the analogy, but I will accept the 
statements of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts as said with 
regard to the dearth of cases in some of these States under State law. 
Under Federal law there will be a proliferation. I guarantee it. I do 
not think anybody doubts it. I think we have seen it and we will see it 
in the future if this bill passes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take the time. My colleagues are 
not here to respond in detail. But, with all respect to my friend, he 
has misstated the law and then differed with the misstatement. I will 
come back to that at a different time.
  How much time does the Senator care for?
  Mr. KERREY. Perhaps 5 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INHOFE). The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it seems to me, for Members who are trying 
to decide on this piece of legislation, the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act, there are really three questions that need to be 
asked and answered. The first is: Should the Federal Government 
intervene and preempt State laws? That really leads to the question: Do 
you support the underlying bill, the Defense of Marriage Act? I do not 
support the underlying bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, for a number 
of reasons including the fact it is the first time the Federal 
Government will be intervening, preempting State laws on family 
matters. Divorce, child support, all sorts of other things will now be 
opened up and legitimate objects of concern for new Federal 
legislation.
  But for those who have answered that first question yes, then this 
amendment is, it seems to me, an appropriate remedy to 41 States that 
currently continue to permit discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation. So that is question No. 1: Do you think the Federal 
Government should intervene? If you support DOMA you already support 
intervention. You already support an act of intervention, which DOMA 
is. DOMA preempts State laws. So does ENDA.
  The second question is a very difficult one. I think--I am not sure 
of this--I think the origin of some of the differing views between the 
Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Utah--I am not certain 
of it--is: Do you believe sexual orientation is a trait, a 
characteristic, or do you think it is behavior? Do you think you are 
born with a particular sexual orientation or do you think you choose 
it, that you decide you want to be gay? Apparently, I guess from the 
letter written by Colin Powell, he believes race is benign but sexual 
orientation is not benign. That is the implication one gets from the 
letter from Colin Powell. I disagree with that. I would say sexual 
orientation is also benign. I do not believe that because I am 
heterosexual I am not benign. I do not think my orientation is an 
indication of what I intend to do, at least in regard to what Colin 
Powell is suggesting. But it is a very important question.
  There are some who believe that sexual orientation is chosen, it is a 
behavior. If you believe that, then you say it is the same thing as 
smoking or the same thing as drinking or other things and you do not 
think you are discriminating. You think it is legitimate. But the 
overwhelming number of people who have looked at this say sexual 
orientation is a trait. You do not choose it. You do not wake up one 
morning and say, ``I think I will be homosexual''--or heterosexual, for 
that matter. It is a very important question. Because, it seems to me, 
if you believe it is a characteristic, that it is a trait, if you do 
believe that, as I do, if that is your conclusion--and Members need to 
ask themselves that--if you believe it is a characteristic, if you 
believe it is a trait, if you believe that is the way you are born, 
then you do have to treat it, at least in some ways, the same as race. 
It is a benign thing. You do not go out and decide this is what you are 
going to do with your life. So that is question No. 2. I answer the 
question that it is a trait, it is a characteristic, you are born this 
way and you orient that way as a consequence.
  Question No. 3 is: Is this the right solution to discrimination? If 
you want the Federal Government to intervene --as I said, I think it is 
a mistake to be intervening, at least in the fashion we are doing with 
DOMA. If you want the Federal Government to intervene, if you believe 
it is a characteristic you are born with, the next question is: Do you 
think this is the right solution? I must say, I think the sponsors of 
this legislation, the drafters of this legislation, have done a very 
good job of trying to draft it in a narrow way so it does solve the 
problem, because it is a relatively small problem, I will say, Mr. 
President. I do think that there is discrimination against gays and 
lesbians in America today. But I do believe employers are increasingly 
saying it is not a threat at all, it is not a problem, it is a trait, 
and that gay and lesbian employees are not a threat to their business, 
they are not a threat to the morale of that company and so forth.
  But, nonetheless, discrimination is occurring. So the drafters of 
this legislation have gone through and said ENDA does not require an 
employer to recruit or advertise job offers. ENDA expressly states no 
disparate impact cases may be made, meaning that discrimination cases 
cannot be made based on statistics alone. ENDA specifically prohibits 
quotas that would compel employers to meet percentages of hiring and 
provides exemptions for nonprofit religious organizations and the 
military, and ENDA does not require that companies pay benefits for 
domestic partners.
  I think this legislation, again, if you support DOMA and you have 
already reached the conclusion that it is OK to intervene in State 
family matters; if you believe homosexuality is a trait that one is 
born with, it orients just like you do if you are heterosexual, if you 
believe it is a trait; and if you are looking for some way, as the 
Senator from Utah is, to narrowly draw a law that will prevent this 
kind of discrimination, I think you can vote no other way than yes on 
what I consider to be a very carefully drawn piece of legislation, a 
very targeted piece of legislation, one that should not provoke a great 
number of lawsuits, that does, it seems to me, treat homosexuality 
different from race.
  It does not provide disparate impact cases be filed. I think it is a 
reasonable piece of legislation. Especially for those who support the 
underlying bill, it seems to me an easy thing to support, an easy thing 
to vote ``aye'' on. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first let me acknowledge the leadership of 
Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has really been, in all these areas of 
human rights, a distinguished leader. I really appreciate that 
leadership.
  I attended a meeting of the Illinois Society last night, people from 
Illinois who live in the Washington, DC, area. We started that meeting 
by saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
  One of the things that has interested me is how rarely we do 
something like that anymore.
  As part of that Pledge of Allegiance, we said, ``one Nation, under 
God, indivisible * * *'' Some people want to make it ``one Nation, 
under God, indivisible,'' except for African-Americans.
  Some want to make it ``one Nation, under God, indivisible,'' except 
for Hispanic-Americans.
  Some people want to make it ``one Nation, under God, indivisible,'' 
except for Asian-Americans.
  Some people want to make it ``one Nation, under God, indivisible,'' 
except for people with disabilities.
  And some people want to make it ``one Nation, under God, 
indivisible,'' except for gays.
  I think there are a great many people who feel uncomfortable in this 
area. It is a word that Senator Hatch used.
  Let me comment first on the Defense of Marriage Act and then on the 
legislation that Senator Kennedy has introduced, of which I am pleased 
to be a cosponsor.
  The hate crimes bill that I introduced a few years ago, that is now 
law, has the FBI keeping track of hate crimes. The greatest number of 
hate crimes are against African-Americans, but if you look at the 
numbers of people proportionately, the greatest number of hate crimes 
are against gays in our society.

[[Page S9996]]

  The last thing we need to do is to divide America more, and the 
Defense of Marriage Act does that.
  A great many people do feel uncomfortable, and it is a hidden 
problem. I grew up in a family where my parents were active in what we 
then called race relations. I was not aware of this problem at all 
until I went into the Army.
  When I went into the Army, I was assigned to the counterintelligence 
corps. One of our jobs was to screen people for classified material.
  Let me add for those who argue about this today, people who were gay 
were drafted into the Army just as much as anybody who was not gay. For 
those who do not want to accept gays into the military, if you have a 
draft and you can be exempt if you are gay, I think we are going to 
have a lot of gays in our country, people who are going to list that.
  But I became aware that people could be blackmailed very easily who 
were homosexual. I gradually became more aware of the problem.
  I can remember in the House--the Presiding Officer may not have been 
here at that point--we had a House Member who used to introduce gay-
bashing legislation, amendments, by the name of Bob Bauman, a 
Republican Member from Maryland. Then it turned out he was homosexual 
himself, but he felt compelled to do this.
  The number of crimes not only against gays, but the number of 
suicides in this country is a very real problem.
  I had an experience not too many months ago where a college 
classmate, a friend I had not seen for some years, stopped by, and as 
you do when you get together with a college classmate, we talked about 
our families. And he said, ``We had a very emotional experience.'' I 
asked him what it was. He said, ``Our daughter told us she was 
lesbian.'' In the course of it, he said, ``My daughter told me, `You 
don't think I would choose this.' She said, `I was born this way.' ''
  Senator Kerrey's comments are apropos. We know now from scientific 
evidence that there is a genetic basis, at least among men--and the 
assumption is this is probably true for women, too--for homosexuality.
  When I grew up, my father did not take me aside and say, ``Paul, you 
have to be interested in girls.'' He had to give me other warnings. But 
there are people who by orientation are interested in people in the 
same sex. Genetically, they are built that way.
  If, in this Defense of Marriage Act, we start defining marriage, who 
is to stop the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from Kansas or 
the Senator from Washington from introducing Federal legislation on 
divorce, for adoptions or other areas? We simply should not be getting 
into this area.
  Let me comment on Senator Kennedy's legislation. The statement 
Senator Kennedy put up there that was put out--I am going to mention 
the company's name, Cracker Barrel--I have not been into a Cracker 
Barrel restaurant since that woman testified, and I am not going to go 
into one until we pass legislation like this. But her separation notice 
read--let me repeat it again--``This employee is being terminated due 
to a violation of company policy. The employee is gay.'' That was a 
woman who worked as a cook, very low wages. When she testified before 
our committee, she was working part time cutting firewood.
  What kind of a society are we building? We have to have opportunity 
for people. I can remember when we first started talking way back when 
I was in the State legislature, the Fair Employment Practices 
Commission, ``Let's not discriminate against African-Americans or 
Jewish-Americans and others,'' and people said, ``Oh.'' They thought, 
``My job is going to be taken away.'' And they were worried about a lot 
of things.
  It turns out we passed that and we lifted the economy of this Nation 
because people were not discriminated against anymore. I notice that 
among the statements that were signed in terms of our practice, Bob 
Dole, on April 14, 1994, signed a statement: ``The sexual orientation 
of an individual is not a consideration in the hiring, promoting or 
terminating of an employee in my congressional office.'' What is good 
enough for Bob Dole ought to be good enough for the country.
  The religious organizations--and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. 
President, to have printed in the Record the statement of the United 
Methodist Church, the National Council of the Churches of Christ, The 
American Jewish Community, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         General Board of Church and Society of the United 
           Methodist Church,
                                Washington, DC, September 3, 1996.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the General Board of Church and 
     Society, the social justice advocacy agency of the 9.5 
     million member United Methodist Church, I strongly urge you 
     support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (S. 932) (ENDA) 
     introduced by Sen. John Chaffee (R-RI) and Sen. Ted. Kennedy 
     (D-MA).
       The Senate may soon vote on ENDA as an amendment to the 
     Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). Though the United Methodist 
     Church does not presently have an official position on DOMA, 
     The General Board of Church and Society has consistently and 
     very strongly endorsed the passage of the Employment Non-
     Discrimination Act into law since its introduction in the 
     U.S. Senate.
       The Social Principles, the official policy doctrine of the 
     United Methodist Church states, ``Homosexual persons, no less 
     than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth . . 
     . Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all 
     persons. We are committed to support those rights and 
     liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of 
     simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they 
     have shared material resources, pensions, guardian 
     relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such 
     lawful claims typically attendant to contractual 
     relationships which involve shared contributions, 
     responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection under 
     law.''
       If there is anything our agency can do to assist you in 
     securing passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act 
     into law, please don't hesitate to call on me personally or 
     Hilary Shelton the Program Director working on this issue at 
     (202) 488-5658.
           Sincerely yours,
                                          Thom White Wolf Fassett,
     General Secretary.
                                                                    ____

                                  National Council of the Churches


                                         of Christ in the USA,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1996.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Council of 
     Churches, I am writing to endorse S. 932, the Employment Non-
     Discrimination Act of 1996.
       The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the 
     U.S.A. is the preeminent expression in the United States of 
     the movement for Christian unity. Its 33 Protestant and 
     Orthodox member communions, to which 52 million people 
     belong, work together and with other church bodies, to build 
     a wide sense of Christian community and to deepen the 
     experience of unity. Our position on this matter is based on 
     policy approved by our General Assembly, whose 400 members 
     are selected by our member communions in numbers 
     proportionate to their size.
       The National Council of Churches has always held that, as a 
     child of God, every person is endowed with worth and dignity 
     that human judgment cannot set aside. Therefore, evey person 
     is entitled to equal treatment under the law. Discrimination 
     based on any criteria such as race, class, sex, creed, place 
     of national origin, or sexual orientation is morally wrong.
       Accordingly, the Council would urge you to support the 
     prompt passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as a 
     manner to protect against such discrimination.
           Sincerely,
                                 (Rev. Dr.) Albert M. Pennybacker,
     Associate General Secretary for Public Policy.
                                                                    ____



                                The American Jewish Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
       Dear Senator: While the American Jewish Committee has taken 
     no position on the Defense of Marriage Act, AJC fully 
     supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as an 
     important protection of basic civil rights. We urge you to 
     vote for ENDA as an amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act.
       ENDA is simple justice. It ensures that employment 
     decisions are based on one's performance and abilities and 
     not on perceptions of an employee's sexual orientation. No 
     ``special rights'' are created. ENDA simply extends the same 
     legal protections from employment discrimination provided to 
     other individuals who have historically been denied equal 
     employment opportunities.
       The protection of religious liberty is of central 
     importance to the American Jewish Committee. ENDA's broad 
     exemption for religious organizations gives proper regard to 
     this concern. No sectarian institution will be required to 
     violate the religious precepts on which it was founded.
       ENDA is a crucial protection of civil rights. We urge you 
     to support the amendment that would incorporate ENDA into the 
     Defense of Marriage Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard T. Foltin,
     Legislative Director and Counsel.
                                       ____


[[Page S9997]]


                                              Evangelical Lutheran


                                            Church in America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 
     (ELCA) has committed itself to participate in God's mission 
     by ``advocating dignity and justice for all people'' and 
     ``joining with others to remove obstacles of discrimination 
     and indifference''.
       With these core commitments, the ELCA has affirmed its 
     historical position of ``strong opposition to all forms of 
     verbal or physical harassment or assault of persons because 
     of their sexual orientation and support for legislation, 
     referendums, and policies to protect the civil rights of all 
     persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, and to 
     prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public 
     services and accommodations.''
       The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would be one 
     step toward fulfilling these commitments. ENDA would extend 
     Federal employment discrimination protections currently 
     provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin, 
     age and disability to sexual orientation.
       Therefore, the ELCA continues its support of the Employment 
     Non-Discrimination Act and urges your support of this 
     important initiative to extend employment discrimination 
     protection to all people.
     Sincerely,
                                                  Kay S. Dowhower,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SIMON. We have to make sure that ours is a society that gives 
opportunity to everyone. I want every page here--I do not care what 
your sexual orientation or race or religion or what your background 
is--I want you to have every opportunity. I have four grandchildren. I 
want them to have every opportunity. That is what America is all about, 
and that is what this legislation is about.
  We need an education. I still need an education. I am not as fully 
familiar--in the hearing that we had, I used the phrase ``sexual 
preference,'' and I was told by leaders of the community they prefer 
the phrase ``sexual orientation'' because ``preference'' indicates 
choice. And so I am learning.
  People were not made by God all the same. Some of us have brown hair, 
some of us red hair, some of us black hair, some blonde. Some were made 
with a different sexual orientation than most of us have, and we should 
not deny them employment opportunities. What happened to that cook in 
that Cracker Barrel restaurant should not happen to any American. That 
is what this legislation is all about, and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator 
from Oklahoma would like to use.
  Mr. NICKLES. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to compliment the Senator from Kansas for 
her statement and also Senator Hatch for his statement as well.
  Mr. President, No. 1, I did not expect this debate this morning. This 
debate is the result of the unanimous-consent agreement that was 
entered into last night. I supported that agreement. So we will be 
voting on this bill and we will be voting on the Defense of Marriage 
Act on Tuesday. So at least we will be able to bring up and dispose of 
two pieces of legislation.
  I believe the legislation that we are debating this morning called 
ENDA, Employment Nondiscrimination Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy 
and others, is a very significant piece of legislation. I happen to 
disagree with it. I happen to think it is a very dangerous piece of 
legislation. I am pleased it is not going to be offered as an amendment 
to the Defense of Marriage Act. I perceived it as a killer amendment. 
In all likelihood, if it had been adopted on the Defense of Marriage 
Act, it would have killed it. So I viewed it as an attempt to defeat 
the Defense of Marriage Act. So I am pleased that we are at least 
reviewing it or considering it separately.
  Mr. President, this is not an easy subject to talk about, not an easy 
subject for most of us, because we do not talk about it very often. We 
are talking about amending the Civil Rights Act and adding sexual 
orientation to the list of items now under the Civil Rights Act which 
have protection.
  We state under the Civil Rights Act there should be no discrimination 
on account of gender, on account of race, on account of your ethnic 
background, or disabilities or age or religion, and now if this 
amendment becomes law, we would add sexual orientation, and ``sexual 
orientation'' would be defined as homosexuality and bisexuality and 
heterosexuality. It actually would elevate homosexuality and 
bisexuality as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
  Many, many people across America, because of their backgrounds--and 
maybe that background is a Jewish background or Christian background or 
Muslim background--have religious beliefs that homosexuality or 
bisexuality or promiscuity is immoral. To elevate that type of conduct 
into a protected status or class under the Civil Rights Act I think 
would be offensive. What would be the result?
  Senator Kassebaum and Senator Hatch mentioned the fact that it would 
certainly bring about a lot of litigation. There is no question about 
that. A lot of individuals and a lot of firms would be sued based on 
sexual orientation claims if this bill becomes law.
  There are exemptions under the bill, and appropriately so. Do we 
really want to say that people should be sued because they have 
religious convictions that go back to the Bible, or go back to their 
Muslim tenets or beliefs or their Koran, all of which say that this 
behavior is wrong? If they believe that in their hearts, and they do 
not want to have that conduct in their office or in their place of 
employment, should they be sued? Now, we are talking about real life 
situations. I do not doubt that there has been some discrimination, 
unwarranted, in many cases. I do not find that right.
  I heard somebody say nine States, including the State of 
Massachusetts, have laws that prohibit discrimination on account of 
sexual orientation. Fine, I do not care if each and every State does, 
if that is that State's choice. If 9 States have done it that means 41 
States have not. Maybe those 41 States will. They have the right to 
enact such laws. I would not step in their way one iota if the State 
wishes to make that decision. They can reverse it if they do not like 
that decision. That is their right. To elevate discrimination on 
account of sexual orientation and make it national and to make it a 
protected class under the Civil Rights Act I think would be a serious, 
serious mistake and one that we should not do.
  What would be the result? I mentioned the litigation. What would be 
the practical result? I think if some organizations said they did not 
want to have openly gay or homosexual people as role models or mentors 
for young people--Boy Scouts come to mind; maybe other organizations, 
churches, then they should not have to hire them. I guess there is an 
exemption for churches and religious organizations that are nonprofit. 
Where do you draw the line at a church? If you leave church on a Sunday 
morning at noon, does that mean you are no longer affiliated with the 
church? A lot of us think of church as a body of believers and we do 
not believe it is just a building you attend once a week. If you have 
heartfelt convictions and beliefs should you, once you step out of 
church, be forced to hire someone whose sexual orientation offends you? 
What about somebody that believes they are part of a body of followers 
of Christ, or maybe of Jewish belief, and tenets that they believe in, 
7 days a week 24 hours a day? Do you have to leave those beliefs at 
home? Do you have to check those beliefs at the door when you leave 
church?
  There is an exemption for churches. What about a Christian bookstore, 
for example? A Christian bookstore for profit does not fall under the 
exemption. So here you have a business with very strongly felt 
convictions, but it is a for-profit Christian bookstore, Jewish 
bookstore, or Muslim bookstore they would be liable to be sued if they 
did not hire somebody who was openly gay. That may be very 
reprehensible to them and their basic beliefs, yet they can be sued.
  What about the Boy Scouts? They have had a policy not to have 
homosexual Scoutmasters and they have been sued--they have been sued 
even without having sexual orientation included under the Civil Rights 
Act, and yet they are in court and have been in court, have spent 
hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to maintain their policy. They 
do not want to have openly gay homosexuals as their

[[Page S9998]]

Scoutmasters and leaders and employees in their organization. Now, 
sexual orientation is not even included in the Civil Rights Act and yet 
they still have been sued. They have spent hundreds of thousands of 
dollars defending their right to maintain their policy. Under at least 
the original Kennedy legislation that was introduced that policy would 
have to be changed or they would be sued.
  Somebody informed me there was an amendment added in the last couple 
of days to try to correct this. I am not sure it would correct this. 
They were being sued before consideration of this legislation. My guess 
is they will be sued after this legislation, should it become law. I am 
hopeful and optimistic it will not become law.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am happy to yield 10 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. What about a public school? They have contact with kids. 
They are not exempt under this legislation, as I understand it.
  Say you have kids, and a homosexual or bisexual grade school teacher, 
maybe that is fine in some schools in some districts, because it is 
very acceptable, but in some areas it might not be.
  Take, for example, a school board in rural Alabama finds out their 
fifth grade teacher is an open homosexual, or it is well-known that 
this person is a homosexual, he admitted it to the school board. They 
inquired and he said that he has had relations with lots of people. 
Maybe he is bisexual. This bill covers or protects bisexuals. Maybe he 
had relations not only with his wife but has several boyfriends or 
something like that. The school board says that is not really the type 
of leadership mentor that they want to have in a school official, 
coach, or somebody who is working with kids. So that is not acceptable 
behavior.
  Under this bill, as I see it, the school board could be sued. Maybe 
just the threat of the suit would prohibit the school board from taking 
such action. Do we really want to do that? Do we want to interfere with 
the school boards in rural Alabama, West Virginia, Montana, or Iowa? Do 
we really want to mandate it? If those States want to do it, more power 
to them, let them do it. But do we really want to give the level of 
protection, special protection, under the Civil Rights Act--I do not 
think that is wise--and open that school board up to unbelievable 
litigation or open that Christian bookstore up to litigation and say, 
``Sorry, you did not fall under the exemptions. You are a for-profit 
Christian bookstore.'' Therefore, tough luck if you do not hire this 
person even though they might be wearing a T-shirt that says ``I am gay 
and proud of it and let's make love,'' you would have to hire them. You 
are subjected to unbelievable litigation, punitive damages--not just 
compensatory damage, but punitive damages.
  Then I heard my colleagues say this bill has no quotas. I read that 
section. It says there is no quotas. Wait a minute. Under the Civil 
Rights Act, the EEOC is charged with enforcing it and they are able to 
collect data. Senator Hatch mentioned this and he is far more 
knowledgeable than I. They have to collect data. If someone files a 
suit against a company and says, ``You did not hire me because I was 
openly gay,'' and that company says, ``Well, that was not the real 
reason why we did not, and we have hired gays in the past.'' And they 
say, ``Well, how do I prove it?'' You have to prove it. How do you 
prove it? You have to survey your employees to make sure you can stand 
up on your argument and say we do not have that policy, we have never 
discriminated against gays. The employer has never asked anybody but 
all of a sudden now somebody came in that was openly gay and you did 
not hire them and they say that is the reason why you did not hire 
them, so for your defense you have to prove that you have hired gays in 
the past.
  Now you have to survey your employees. You never had to do that 
before. Now you have to survey every employee. What is your sexual 
orientation? None of your business. Employers do not want to ask that 
question. I have employed a lot of people. I have never asked that 
question, would not dream of asking that question. Yet now for a 
defense to prove that you were not discriminating if this should become 
law, to prove you were not discriminating on account of sexual 
orientation, you are going to have to defend yourself. So now you have 
to prove that you have hired some homosexuals or bisexuals even though 
you did not even know it, it was not your business, you did not care, 
you do not want to get involved in their private lives. But to protect 
yourself from this litigation you would have to make those decisions.
  Let me give you a couple of other examples. In my days as an 
employer, I had a sales force. Sales people spend a lot of time 
together. They go on the road together. They travel together. They go 
to conventions together. They spend weeks together. What if an employer 
found out this person is a good salesman, has a good reputation, but he 
openly admits that he is bisexual. Now, that may be fine in some sales 
organizations but in some other sales organizations it will not be very 
popular. It will not be very popular. It will not be very popular with 
some of the spouses, maybe male and female. If an employer says, 
``Well, no, that person really will not fit into our organization. We 
do not think we should have promiscuous people in our sales team 
because of the time spent away from home, the time and travel, so I 
think that as a policy we will not do that.''
  You say, wait a minute, this bill does not protect that. Wait a 
minute, this bill protects homosexuals and bisexuals. The very 
definition of bisexual means you are promiscuous. You are having sex 
with males and females. Bisexuals are protected under this bill. That 
employer, if you decided not to hire that person because they were 
bisexual, you are on very thin ice. You are going to be sued, and not 
only sued and required to give the person their job back, but sued for 
punitive damages as well--unbelievable litigation expenses. You could 
go on. I have a daughter that is a cheerleader. She attends 
cheerleading camp. Now, I thought, wait a minute, that is not school 
and it is for profit, they make money off of it. I actually have a 
daughter that worked for such a camp, the National Cheerleaders 
Association, this summer. A bunch of youngsters worked with a bunch of 
high school kids. These kids and their teachers and coaches are 
mentors. Now, maybe the person who owns this company is a Christian, 
maybe they are not, or maybe they are Jewish. Maybe they have religious 
beliefs that they would rather not hire openly gay, lesbian, or 
bisexual people as coaches or leaders. Fine. If they have that policy, 
that personal conviction from their religious background or their 
beliefs, and they don't want to hire somebody who is openly gay or 
bisexual, or lesbian, so they don't hire them, then somebody might say, 
``Wait a minute, you didn't hire me because I was bisexual; therefore, 
I am going to sue you.''
  What about the individuals sending those kids to that camp? I think 
they would have a very legitimate complaint. That employer should not 
be forced to hire somebody that is bisexual if they feel like they 
don't want to, and if it would interfere with the role model or image 
they are trying to portray in their company.
  What about a day care center? What about that? If somebody says, 
well--I guess if it is a nonprofit religious-affiliated day care 
center, like the First Baptist Day Care Center in South Dakota, they 
will be exempt. But what if you have one that makes money and they are 
for profit, but maybe they have a religious affiliation and want to 
have a real positive family image, and they really don't want to have 
activist gay, lesbian, or bisexual teachers or employees teaching the 
kids? I am afraid, under this legislation, they could be sued. As a 
matter of fact, they could be sued. People need to know that.
  I know a lot of people, when they think of gays and lesbians, they 
think of individuals they know that are monogamous, and they are great 
employees, super people to work with, very productive. I know that. But 
there are also a lot of very active people, who work to pursue an 
activist agenda, and they would like to use the courts, as they have in 
many ways, to pursue their agenda. That is the reason why they are 
suing the Boy Scouts. That is the reason why they have sued in the 
State of Hawaii. We will talk about

[[Page S9999]]

that on Tuesday, to try to define marriage, and about allowing same-sex 
partners.
  So there are many people who are very active who use the courts and, 
in some cases, abuse the courts, to pursue a very radical agenda.
  I am afraid this legislation, if we add sexual orientation to the 
Civil Rights Act, will help them a lot. We have elevated what many, 
many people believe, because of their religious convictions in their 
heart, to be immoral acts--we will have elevated that to a protected 
special status under the Civil Rights Act if we add sexual orientation 
defined as homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. If we add that to 
the Civil Rights Act, Mr. President, I think we are making a serious 
mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment on Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time could I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 27 minutes 
17 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Would it be possible to have about 10 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It might 
be useful for this body to know a little bit of my background with this 
kind of legislation.
  Twenty-five years ago, I was a new president of the San Francisco 
Board of Supervisors, and I drafted legislation to amend the human 
rights ordinance of that city and county to prohibit discrimination in 
both housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation. To my 
knowledge, it was the first such legislation ever introduced in a major 
city and county anywhere in the United States.

  Well, I served as supervisor for 9 years, and then as mayor for 9 
years. During that period of time, I never, ever had a single complaint 
about that legislation--not one. It was the first in the Nation, and it 
was difficult to pass; people did not understand it. Some said, ``Is 
this special treatment?'' Answer: No. ``Does this convey some 
additional right that no one else has?'' Answer: No. It's pure and 
simple, as this legislation is pure and simple.
  What this legislation says is that you cannot be denied employment 
because you may be gay or straight. It does not say you are protected 
against inappropriate conduct in any way, shape, or form. I think this 
is a key point. Is it inappropriate conduct for anybody to be kissing 
on their job as a waiter or waitress? The answer is, yes, it is 
inappropriate conduct, regardless of whether they are gay or straight. 
The same thing goes for clothing. If it is inappropriate to wear 
certain things in the workplace, this is true whether you are gay or 
whether you are straight.
  So a lot of the hobgoblins that are expressed by the other side that 
this will open the world to all kinds of inappropriate activity, in my 
view, based on 25 years of watching a piece of legislation that I 
authored, which was passed, which I presided over as mayor of the city, 
is simply not correct.
  There was not one complaint from any major corporation or minor 
corporation, major business or minor business, major employer or minor 
employer in the city and county of San Francisco, to my knowledge, in 
the last 25 years. These are major corporations like Bechtel, major 
corporations like McKesson, major corporations like Wells Fargo Bank, 
major corporations like the Bank of America, who have operated with 
this legislation intact in the city and county of San Francisco for the 
past 25 years, without a problem.
  I believe that will be true for the rest of the Nation. This bestows 
no quota, no special privilege, no exemption from any law or rule or 
code of conduct anywhere. It simply says, based on the fact that you 
may be gay or lesbian, you cannot be denied employment.
  But act inappropriately and it all changes. Do something that is 
improper conduct, and it all changes. But just because of who you may 
be, you simply cannot be denied employment. It seems to me that that is 
a pretty basic right that everybody has, regardless of their race, 
their religion, their creed, their color. Just because I am black, 
don't deny me employment. Just because I am Hispanic, don't deny me 
employment. But if I act inappropriately for the job, if I dress 
inappropriately for the job, or if I, in any way, create problems, then 
it is a different story. But not just because of who I am, because I 
can't help who I am. That is the message of this legislation.
  Let me give you two cases, two specific cases. William Ballou began 
working as a waiter in a Fremont, CA, restaurant in September 1991. 
Within 6 months, he had received both a promotion to assistant manager 
and a glowing letter of recommendation by the franchise owners of the 
restaurant.
  But other waiters, some bartenders, and the restaurant manager 
frequently made antigay remarks, even urging servers to rush gay 
patrons, because, they were told, ``this is a family restaurant.'' 
After one particularly hurtful confrontation with the manager, Ballou 
told the franchise owners about this harassment. He was then fired due 
to ``personality conflicts.'' We see this pattern of harassment 
followed by firing all too often.
  Sometimes the discriminatory firing is even more blatant. One woman, 
Tracie Cleverly, worked for many months at a Salt Lake City franchise 
of a well-known restaurant chain. Her coworkers and manager were aware 
that she was a lesbian, but this didn't affect her prospects or her 
work environment. She received good work reviews, and her manager soon 
started her in training to be a supervisor.
  Unfortunately, her understanding manager resigned, and a new person 
came to work his first day with a list of people to be fired, including 
all of the gay and lesbian workers in the restaurant. And he simply 
said, ``I don't want these kinds of people working here.''
  We are not asking for special rights in this legislation. All we are 
saying is that simply because someone may be gay or straight, no more 
than someone may be black or Catholic or Jewish or Spanish or American 
Indian, or anything else, just because of who they are they should not 
be discriminated against.
  I have listened to some of the comments on this floor about 
inappropriate action and special privilege, and none of this is 
encompassed in this legislation. It is clean, it is pure, and it is 
simple. And it is just directed at persons themselves. Once that person 
begins to do certain things, it may be a different story. Inappropriate 
conduct, once again, is inappropriate conduct, whether you be gay or 
straight. I think that is a very important point to get across.
  So I would like to commend the Senator from Massachusetts. It is my 
belief that this freestanding bill provides the same remedies permitted 
under title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With 
Disabilities Act.
  This is a big country. It is a democratic country. I think every 
Member of this body believes that no one should be prevented from 
obtaining a job because of their race, creed, color, sex, and I hope 
sexual orientation will be added to that.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to yield 15 minutes to 
the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, very much, Mr. President, and I thank the 
Senator from Kansas for the opportunity to speak on this important 
issue. It is an important issue, and I think her remarks earlier about 
the legal difficulties that are encountered whenever you have the kind 
of potential for punitive damages and have the kind of framework that 
would allow legal challenges on decisions made by business people--
those were very important points on this matter. I commend her for 
making those points.
  I also want to commend Senator Hatch for his important discussion of 
these issues, and Senator Nickles who raised components of 
consideration here which I think have yet to be raised and ought to be 
raised.
  I would like to make a few observations about what it is we do when 
we seek to enact legislation like this and the kind of signals we send 
and what the public interest is in terms of this kind of legislation.
  First of all, I have to say that I have no intention nor desire to 
inflict any

[[Page S10000]]

kind of burden or difficulty upon individuals in our culture who are 
homosexuals. I have worked with homosexuals in various 
responsibilities. When I served as Governor of the State of Missouri I 
learned that several of the individuals in the administration were 
homosexuals and had done outstanding work. Unfortunately, several of 
those individuals with whom I worked and whom I respected met a very 
early death, in part as a result of the practice, I believe, of their 
lifestyle, and it is a tragedy. My sympathy has always been for them 
and to their families. In one case we had to transfer a worker to be 
more proximate to medical attention and care because of the challenges 
that he faced.

  So it is not a matter in terms of my own situation of wanting to 
increase the burden or otherwise make difficult the lives of 
individuals who have a homosexual lifestyle. As a matter of fact, that 
is already a real challenge.
  I want to point out that in everything we do in government we teach. 
We send signals. We say what is good and what is bad. We encourage some 
things. We discourage others. President Clinton has decided to send a 
signal about cigarette smoking. He has basically said that, because 
smoking cigarettes can curtail your life expectancy anywhere between 
2.1 and 12.2 years, that he is going to be aggressive in communicating 
to this culture that you should not start smoking. It is bad for you. 
It will hurt you. It will shorten your lifespan. There are some of us 
in this Chamber who would disagree with the way in which the President 
is trying to send that signal. Some of us would question whether or not 
we ought to assign to the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration, an 
agency which is already overburdened and which is struggling to do 
minimally acceptably its current task--the substantial new task of 
regulating tobacco. But I think all of us agree that the right signal 
is that smoking is bad for you and that it is injurious to your health. 
Smoking is obviously a choice. But we are trying to send a signal about 
what we believe and that this Government does not want to encourage you 
to smoke.
  I believe when we consider enacting legislation that gives special 
standing to a particular category of conduct, that sends a signal that 
says that that conduct is to be elevated, it is to be approved, it is 
somehow to have special privilege, then we have to be careful about 
what we are doing.
  There is a debate about whether or not people who are homosexuals are 
born that way or are genetically programmed that way or that it perhaps 
is a conduct which they acquire or which they develop. Frankly, I 
cannot say for sure from a personal perspective that there is no way 
that there could be individuals who are genetically predisposed. I 
can't make that determination. I do know that there are thousands of 
former homosexuals, individuals who once were engaged in a homosexual 
lifestyle, who have changed that lifestyle and have repudiated it and 
find themselves to be engaged in heterosexual lifestyles.
  So it is clear to me that, while there may be a genetic base for the 
activity in some respects, it is clear that it is an activity of choice 
in other respects and that it is a choice which can be made and unmade.
  I think when we as a government are signaling an approval, or an 
elevation, of a lifestyle, we have to ask ourselves to what extent are 
we suggesting to individuals in the culture that they ought to adopt 
it.
  I am worried about youngsters in our society. I think there are times 
when young men are unsure about themselves when they are in transition, 
when they have identified perhaps more with their mothers than with 
their fathers, and they move from boyhood to manhood. Those are 
critical times when role models are very important. I think Senator 
Nickles was on target when he said that we have to be careful of who we 
have in the Boy Scouts. I commend the sponsors of this legislation for 
exempting the Boy Scouts. The sponsors also exempt the military, 
because I think they recognize the fact that there are sensitive 
positions where we understand that we wouldn't be confident in having 
this elevated standing for homosexuals in regard to positions in the 
military. Colin Powell made it clear when he stood by the gay ban in 
the military. He said, ``Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral 
characteristic.'' He said that to distinguish it from homosexual 
activity. ``Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human 
behavioral characteristics.'' It is a matter of conduct. Sex is not a 
matter of conduct. It is a matter of configuration. It is the way in 
which we are made. Sexual orientation, according to Colin Powell, is a 
matter of conduct.
  I think we ought to be careful of what we are supporting as a 
government. We should be wary of telling young people that you will 
have a higher standing, you will have a greater durability on the job, 
it will be more difficult to fire you, you are likely to have a cause 
of action if someone fails to hire you, you can sue someone for failing 
to hire you if you can allege that you are a homosexual--you will not 
be able to do that, if you have ordinary sexual orientation.
  Senator Nickles, in talking about young people, stated something 
which I believe; that is, in hiring schoolteachers, or camp counselors, 
or those who deal with young people, you never just hire a teacher.
  You are always hiring more than a teacher. You are hiring a role 
model. I cannot think of a single teacher in my past who was simply a 
teacher to me. Whether he or she liked it or not, that teacher was a 
role model. And I think those who operate organizations that have 
situations like that are appropriately exempted in this legislation. 
But this exemption should be much broader in this bill. As a matter of 
fact, to deprive employers of the ability to make those kinds of 
judgments--as this bill does--in my view, is unwise. I think this bill 
sends a signal that this is an elevated status. I do not think that is 
the right signal to send to the next generation.
  We all know that in practice, dismissal of individuals who are on the 
protected class lists in the civil rights laws is very, very difficult.
  I believe we ought to have a civil rights law to protect against 
discrimination based upon race and sex. But I remember a situation when 
I was Governor of Missouri in which one man operating a laundry fired a 
black woman from the laundry. She was one of seven black women working 
in the laundry. She was replaced by a black woman. But she sued 
alleging that she was fired because she was discriminated against on 
the basis of both race and sex. I remember that the operator of that 
particular laundry spent a substantial amount of money defending 
against that kind of suit.
  The truth of the matter is that the establishment of protected 
classes makes much more difficult the ability of anyone to even use 
good judgment in hiring and firing because there is always this threat 
of litigation. The threat of litigation here is not inconsequential. It 
is not minimal. It is not small. When you get to the place of offering 
the potential for punitive damages for violation of these kinds of 
items, you get into astronomical figures.
  Shell Oil Co. had a company policy that said it would only use on-
the-job activities as the basis for hiring and firing. That is kind of 
what this law really sets up, saying, we will not allow sexual 
orientation to be used as the basis for that. Shell found that one of 
its employees was using the company copier to produce and copy a flier 
advertising a safe sex party for homosexual men. It said that is not 
what we want our company to be standing for, that is not what we want 
to be doing. It fired the individual. A California court fined Shell 
Oil $5.3 million for dismissing the executive. It provided that kind of 
a penalty.
  This is the kind of intimidation that occurs, especially when you are 
in the universe of the macro damages that we frequently see in 
litigation these days.
  This is not the kind of thing we want to invite into our businesses. 
Senator Nickles has said very clearly it is not the kind of thing we 
want to invite into camps for children, into the schools. This law 
provides a distinction, saying that if schools are religious schools or 
nonprofit schools, they do not have to abide by it. I think that is 
right. They understand that there are many legitimate objectives of 
schools that would be impaired substantially by this. But is the 
objective of a profitmaking school different than

[[Page S10001]]

a nonprofit school? Are the children who go to the school that makes a 
profit providing the services any less to be protected than the 
children who go to a school that is nonprofit?
  Are the role model considerations any different if the organization 
makes a profit than if the organization does not make a profit?
  If it is my child, do I somehow feel differently because the 
executive director of the school is a nonprofit guy earning $100,000 a 
year driving a nonprofit-provided vehicle, BMW, or a fledgling profit-
seeking institution where the guy is barely eking out a living for his 
family and he is driving a Chevy?
  The big distinction in the legislation is one of a profitmaking 
institution and one a nonprofit institution. For Heaven's sake, I do 
not care whether they are making a profit. What I care about is what is 
happening in the outcome. If it is a school that is dealing with young 
people, if there is a legitimate reason to say that the Boy Scouts 
should not have to abide by this and the nonprofits should not have to 
abide by this, why do we impose it on the rest of the world?

  If there is a legitimate reason why the U.S. military in the national 
interest is exempted from this, why is it that it needs to be imposed 
on the rest of the world?
  If it is a legitimate reason to protect the individuals who have the 
right resources and can send their kids to a nonprofit private school 
from this proposed law, why is it that the public schools cannot have 
these same kinds of opportunities to say that we want to send the right 
signals; we want to hire more than a teacher; we want to hire a role 
model, recognizing that there may be some who at a tender age would be 
directed by the role modeling that takes place by teachers and by 
leaders in scouts and informal organizations and activities. Maybe we 
would just like to say that even people in the public sector ought to 
be able to have that right, the school district ought to be able to 
have that right. It is not as if these things do not happen. And there 
are things that you wonder about.
  Recently, here in the northern Virginia area, there was the young 
boys' gym teacher who had been making the gay pornographic videos and 
was discovered to be leading a dual life. On the west coast he was the 
gay porno video star; on the east coast he was the gym teacher. That is 
not activity that is perhaps relevant or particularly associated with 
his school duties, but if my children were in the school I would want 
to think we would have the opportunity to look carefully at that and 
perhaps make a judgment that this was not the right kind of role model.
  In all that we do in Government, we teach. I believe when we say that 
something is to be preferred----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15 minutes of the Senator from Missouri 
have expired.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would be happy to yield 5 more minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I do not think I need but about 2 minutes to close.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Whatever time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I just believe there are areas in this bill that 
recognize there are legitimate concerns and they throw out a bone here 
and a bone there--a bone to the Boy Scouts if the Boy Scouts are 
covered. I am not sure they are. A bone to the religious schools or to 
the not-for-profit schools but not to the other schools, a bone to the 
Armed Forces because I guess we do not want to impair the defense of 
the country but maybe we are willing to put into jeopardy the future of 
the country. In my view, it is clear that the signal we send in this 
bill is the wrong signal. It contains seeds of real instability and 
inappropriate activity, seeds of litigation which could grow way out of 
hand and send the wrong signals to young people and provide a special 
standing and class--not based upon existence and construction but upon 
conduct. Not based upon sex but upon sexual activity.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas for the time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2056, the 
Employment Nondiscrimination Act. It has been noted on the floor that 
we are in an honorable succession here, from legislation that has very 
much defined this period in American national life. We begin with the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which the prohibition against 
discrimination based on color was extended to include discrimination 
based on sex. That was part of the calculation of opponents of the 
legislation. In the end, both prevailed, with large consequences to our 
society.
  I should think each of us, or almost all of us in the Senate, have 
been to one or the other of the national conventions of our parties, 
and have seen an extraordinary range of persons, men and women, black 
and white, Hispanic and thus-and-so. I do not know how many would 
recall how strikingly different this would have been, say 40 years ago, 
when I had the opportunity to be part of the Democratic Convention in 
the city of Chicago. Seeing photographs and films of it today, you see 
a different world. It has been changed, and for the better, and 
agreeably, by legislation enacted on this Senate floor.
  The time to extend the prohibition against discrimination based on 
sexual preference, as the usage is, is surely at hand. For my part, I 
introduced legislation that would address this matter in terms of 
employment in 1979. Then, in 1985, this legislation was first 
introduced. I was a cosponsor. It could scarcely have been said to come 
about precipitously. It is 11 years, if you like; 17 years, if you 
prefer, that we have been discussing it.
  The simple proposition before us is that no person should be denied 
civil rights because of his or her affectional or sexual orientation. 
Federal guarantees against discriminatory practices in employment, 
housing, public accommodations, and federally funded programs should 
extend to all citizens. At least, that is how I read the due process 
clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, the equal protection clause of 
the 14th amendment, and the right to privacy implied in the 4th and 5th 
amendments.
  The legislation does not condone any particular course of conduct. It 
simply affords all American citizens equal protection under the law. It 
is narrowly drafted to prevent an explosion of litigation. The bill 
would not apply to the U.S. Armed Forces or to religious organizations. 
The bill would not affect marriage, adoption, or child custody laws, 
all of which are determined individually by the States. And the 
legislation makes clear that preferential treatment and quotas are 
prohibited, and that no claims will be permitted based upon 
underrepresentation in a particular work force.
  That randomness is to be expected in our society and encouraged, in 
the sense that people seek what they feel to be the best outlet for 
their opportunities. It is discrimination that we oppose, which we have 
legislated against for a generation now. And, as we look about us, we 
look at the consequences: a degree of acceptance such that you would 
never know the resistance of a generation ago. You would never know how 
fierce the opposition was to that which we could not imagine doing 
without today.
  I think this will be the case with the legislation before us. I am 
proud to cosponsor it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 40 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Then I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, If I might begin with what may seem like an elevated, 
but I think is an accurate, vision of what our work here is as 
lawmakers, I was trained to believe the law is the expression of our 
values. It is the way we take our values as a society and put them into 
a code. It is, in some sense, an expression of our aspirations, our 
hopes for ourselves and our society. Because we are imperfect beings 
and we are an imperfect society, we do not always live up to our best 
aspirations as expressed in the law for ourselves.
  In that same sense, the fundamental principles of our country, of our 
democracy, expressed in the Constitution, were a series of values that 
over

[[Page S10002]]

our history we have realized. We were far from perfect from the 
beginning, we are far from perfect today, we will be far from perfect 
even if we pass the nondiscrimination act, which I rise to support, but 
in each case we have tried to make real, according to current 
circumstances, the values expressed in our Constitution.
  Here, today, I think we are taking--if we can bring together the 
support for this measure--a next logical step in extending the 
guarantee of nondiscrimination in employment to people, based on their 
sexual orientation.
  I go back to the source of all our rights as expressed in the 
Declaration of Independence. We did not base these rights on any 
political philosopher's thinking. We did not base them on the report of 
some committee constituted for the formulation of basic rights. We did 
not base them, certainly, on any piece of legislation. It says right 
there at the outset that all of us are given these rights--are endowed 
with these rights by our Creator: The rights to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. Over the 220 years of our history we have come to 
extend that further and further, appropriately, to groups that were not 
included at the outset: People of color, women, et cetera, et cetera.
  What I want to suggest today is that those who are homosexual are 
also God's children. I say to my colleagues who may have strong 
personal feelings about this, one does not have to accept 
homosexuality, one does not even have to accept its morality, if I can 
speak in very direct terms, to support this legislation. Going back to 
the source of all our rights in this country, one simply has to 
acknowledge that those who are homosexual are also God's children and 
deserve to be protected from unfairness in our society, particularly 
from unfairness and discrimination based on sexual orientation in the 
workplace.
  Because what is the driving impulse of this country, that brought my 
grandparents here, brought so many here? Yes, it was religious freedom, 
but it was the basic promise that, in America, if you play by the rules 
and work hard, there is no limit to what you can achieve. That is what 
title VII is all about. That is what the antidiscrimination in 
employment laws are all about.
  What this measure says is very simple but very profound, and in my 
opinion goes to the heart of what America is about. If you are 
homosexual and you work hard and play by the rules, you cannot be 
discriminated against in hiring, in the status of your employment, in 
the level of your compensation, in promotion. To me, that seems like a 
statement of a basic American mainstream value of fairness.

  This is now a separate measure before us, a freestanding bill. 
Originally, though I cosponsored it as a freestanding bill, we were 
going to introduce it as an amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act. I 
intend to support the Defense of Marriage Act because I think that 
affirms another basic American mainstream value, which is marriage as 
an institution. The traditional, time-tested vision, occasionally 
battered but now being restored, hopefully, of marriage as an 
institution between a man and a woman, the best institution to raise 
children in our society. But I worry, even though I view the Defense of 
Marriage Act as an affirmative statement, that we may send the wrong 
message in adopting it, that it is motivated by antihomosexual bigotry. 
I think that perception is wrong, certainly among the great majority of 
my colleagues that I have talked to who are supporting DOMA.
  The best way to make that clear is with another affirmative 
statement, and that is to adopt the Employment Nondiscrimination Act 
and say: Let us be fair. Let us say to everybody in our country that if 
you play by the rules, if you work hard, if you contribute to this 
society, you cannot be punished because of a private decision you have 
made about your sexual orientation.
  I think this is a moment that is historic. Not just in that we are 
debating this measure on the floor. It is historic in that it embraces 
the best values that are part of American history.
  I urge my colleagues to take a fresh look at this, to look at how 
limited it is, how much it excludes quotas, disparate impact, religious 
organizations. And in the fullness of their heart and in the fullness 
of their belief in the American dream, vote for the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the 
legislation offered by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts. I am an original cosponsor of the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act.
  Mr. President, this Nation is in debt to the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts for his consistent and unwavering stance on expanding 
civil rights for all Americans. For decades, he has fought resolutely 
against all forms of discrimination and, for that, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts and this country are richer places. I share his 
conviction that, as public servants, we must do all we can to secure, 
ensure and uphold civil rights for all sectors of American society.
  As any resident of Massachusetts knows, the entire Kennedy family has 
shaped the latter half of the 20th century with progressive public and 
social policy. This legacy is so profound in our State that we have all 
been touched by the generosity and vision of the Kennedy family.
  Mr. President, when I was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator in 1985, I 
authored the gay and lesbian civil rights bill. At that time, only five 
other Senators would join me as cosponsors of that legislation. In the 
last session of Congress, I testified before the Armed Services 
Committee to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the 
military.
  I agree with Senator Kennedy that ENDA is a solution to a serious 
problem. I have heard stories from many Americans who have suffered 
discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It 
is time for these Americans to have recourse against blatant 
discrimination, just as Americans who are fired on the basis of their 
religion, national origin, or gender. Massachusetts is one of the 
States which has recognized the problems of anti-gay and lesbian 
discrimination in the workplace and already has an ENDA-like law.
  Mr. President, last year, I joined 65 of our colleagues in signing a 
pledge that I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation 
in hiring, promotion and firing. Like the majority of our colleagues, 
signing this pledge came easy to me. I have always had openly gay and 
lesbian staff and they have served the people of Massachusetts with 
effective and committed distinction.
  I urge our colleagues to live up to the pledge they signed and 
support this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 6 minutes left. I yield 
myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to address, albeit briefly, some of the points 
that have been raised over the course of the morning.
  First of all, why ENDA should be a national law. The National 
Government has a duty to set national standards of fairness and 
equality. Not all matters are appropriate for Federal legislation, but 
over the past 35 years, we have recognized that the protection of civil 
rights is a basic Federal duty.
  Americans are increasingly mobile. They move from State to State. 
They work for employers with offices in different States and frequently 
transfer from office to office, and they should be free from unjust 
discrimination as they travel across the country.
  The Federal Government has a duty to protect interstate commerce, and 
this deals with employment. It does not tell anyone who to be friendly 
with, but it does say that with respect to employment, which is the 
heart of this legislation, gay Americans will be protected from overt, 
direct, and outrageous discrimination. That is it.
  Mr. President, we have heard the discussions about the Boy Scouts and 
about religious organizations. Regarding the case dealing with the Boy 
Scouts, we are dealing with an individual Boy Scout who refused to 
pledge allegiance to God, and he was an atheist. That issue was brought 
to the courts and was decided by the courts that the Boy Scouts are a 
private organization. That young person lost the case.
  This legislation follows what has been declared by the courts in 
terms of private organizations.

[[Page S10003]]

  Another question arose regarding religious organizations, profit and 
nonprofit, and whether this legislation should differentiate. We 
clearly draw the distinction between profit and nonprofit, because we 
draw the distinction as we have in other civil rights laws in 
protecting religious liberty and religious rights.
  The nonprofit business is generally considered to be one which is 
more directly associated with religious teachings and with religious 
doctrines. The for profit are more secular in nature. That has been the 
definition which has been defined by the IRS. It is the same with 
regard to this particular issue as well. This does not bring up a whole 
new set of questions.
  But beyond all this, Mr. President, I want to conclude with the 
underlying issues that were brought up by those who have spoken out 
against this legislation this morning.
  Basically, we heard what is going to be the message to the young 
people of this country. Our message is that you should not 
discriminate; you should not be part of bigotry in this Nation. That is 
the underlying theme of this legislation. We are talking about 
discrimination and bigotry.
  This Nation has fought its way through on discrimination on bigotry, 
on race and gender, and disabilities, and we are saying we ought to be 
able to go to the next step with regard to gays and lesbians. That is 
the issue, not providing additional special privilege to a lifestyle. 
We are talking about discrimination on the basis of bigotry in our 
society.
  Mr. President, I was around here not that long ago when we were 
making progress on eliminating discrimination. A number of years ago, 
when we were talking about knocking down the walls of discrimination on 
race, some said, ``Well, blacks don't work hard.'' ``Blacks are lazy.'' 
``Blacks aren't competent.'' ``They're different.'' ``Why do we need to 
provide any kind of protection for them?''
  Well, we did. We do not even hear a dispute about that particular 
issue at this time.
  Then we had the issue about protecting women. ``Women are weak.'' 
``Women belong in the home.'' ``Women are not smart enough.'' ``Why 
should women be involved in athletics?''

  We passed title IX, and we all celebrated when they got gold medals 
in basketball and softball. And so the success of our magnificent women 
Olympians, our gymnasts and others in these last Olympic Games makes us 
proud. No one is making those arguments anymore.
  We have seen the discrimination on the basis of mental illness. Last 
night, we took an important step that we had been unwilling to take 
until now in saying, at least in part, that mental illness is not a 
stigma and, in many cases, it is as serious as cancer and heart 
disease.
  It ought to be considered that way. We took a partial step last 
night. We freed ourselves from the old cliches that there is something 
strange about people who have mental illness. We have done the same 
with people who have disabilities. We took steps to do it. We do not 
hear it today on the floor of the United States that those are now all 
mistakes. Now everybody agrees with those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 more minute remaining, and 
the Senator from Kansas has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for 5 minutes more.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I have no problem extending the time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, now we have the stereotyping of gays and 
lesbians as child molesters; everyone who is gay can't wait to get 
their hands on a young child. And we are stereotyping it for one more 
time.
  I thought we knew better than that. Some Members start out with the 
speeches, ``Well, I know gays and lesbians, and they are wonderful 
people, but do we really want them around our children?''
  We know we have laws out there with regard to molestation and about 
violating children, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. We 
know, quite frankly, that in any State school system, they provide the 
same kind of dress codes for heterosexuals, gays or lesbians. Those 
will be enforced. We know if a gay man or lesbian appears in a 
pornographic movie, they will be fired, and so should a heterosexual.
  Nonetheless, we hear those voices out here saying, ``Well, there is 
something really off on all these individuals,'' again playing to the 
stereotype.
  Mr. President, when we play to that, we are perpetuating bigotry. It 
is mean-spirited, it is a cheap shot--cheap shot.
  But we are going to hear more of it during the continuing debate on 
anything to do with gays and lesbians or anyone with HIV. You are going 
to hear cheap shots, and those are in the spirit of intolerance, which 
divides America and creates an atmosphere that I believe encourages 
discrimination in this country. We are trying to free ourselves from 
discrimination and prejudice and bigotry and free ourselves from that 
kind of stereotyping which just adds to it.
  That is basically what this is about. It is not about penalties. It 
is not about proliferation of court cases. It is not about statistics. 
We have addressed those issues, and we will provide additional 
information on Monday afternoon.
  There is a more fundamental and basic question. It is whether we are 
going to be a nation that is going to be mean-spirited and stereotype 
our fellow citizens, or whether we are going to say that we are going 
to free ourselves on the issue of discrimination in the workplace. That 
an individual who wants to work and can do the job is going to be able 
to hold that job and not be fired because they are gay. We must end the 
tradition of viciousness and discrimination directed toward gays and 
lesbians.
  I hope we will pass this legislation. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while the proponents of this bill have 
tried to minimize the potential impact of the bill, the fact is that, 
if it passes, the public and private employers of America subject to 
title VII will face the juggernaut of the Federal enforcement 
machinery. Anyone who contends that this bill will not result in a 
litigation boom is not paying attention to the caseloads at the EEOC 
and Department of Justice.
  Let me say, once again, that equating opposition to this bill with 
opposition to civil rights measures for racial and ethnic minorities 
and women is totally unfair and serves only to divert attention away 
from the ramifications of the bill before us, which I described in my 
opening remarks. Moreover, it equates conduct with immutable 
characteristics. I think General Powell's comments, which I also cited 
earlier, on this equation are well worth considering.
  Some proponents of this bill bundle off concern by parents and 
educators about role models in the schools as nothing more than 
bigotry. But no answer was voiced to the examples I mentioned earlier 
about a heterosexual male teacher publicly displaying physical 
affection for a spouse or girlfriend, and a homosexual teacher publicly 
displaying physical affection for a male partner. Should Congress force 
a school district to treat both teachers the same? The proponents of 
the bill say yes. I say no.
  The supporters of the bill can offer bland assurances about whether 
the bill authorizes the EEOC to collect data on the sexual orientation 
of an employer's employees. They can claim the bill does not talk about 
statistics, but that is very misleading because the bill cross 
references title VII in so many ways. Section 11(a)(1) of the bill 
gives the EEOC ``the same powers as [it] has to administer and enforce 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. * * *'' Under title VII, the 
EEOC requires a number of employers to provide data on the race, 
ethnicity, and gender of employees. Therefore, this bill empowers the 
EEOC to require employers to provide data on the sexual orientation of 
employees, plain and simple. And, these statistics and evidence of so-
called underrepresentation can be used in cases of intentional 
discrimination.
  With respect to this bill's incorporation by reference of title VII's 
remedial scheme, including section 706(g) of title VII, see section 
11(a)(5), I say again that the Supreme Court has allowed courts to 
impose preferences as remedies in some cases until title VII. The

[[Page S10004]]

courts will have the same power under this bill. The Attorney General's 
ability to enter into consent decrees which encompass preferences, 
along with the ability of private parties to do so, under title VII has 
been set forth in Supreme Court precedent, however much some of us may 
disagree with those decisions. This bill provides for the same results. 
[Sections 11(a)(4) and 11(b)].
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the Senator from Georgia 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposal 
before the Senate that is offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts. I think he could find it in himself to concur that a 
person that might be opposed to this does not necessarily constitute 
mean-spiritedness. I think that my record as an employer and as a 
director of a Federal agency would suggest otherwise. And I do not 
think the discourse over the matter should bring itself to people 
being, for or against it, mean-spirited or vicious or whatever.
  I believe this act sets the stage for an enormous expansion of 
Federal power over employers. The bill virtually guarantees an 
avalanche of costly litigation which could hurt small businesses most 
of all. The bill forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation, which it defines to mean homosexuality, bisexuality, or 
heterosexuality, whether such orientation is real or perceived.
  No one knows what this language means. This definition is brand new 
in the law. Lawyers are going to litigate over what constitutes 
homosexuality, or heterosexuality, bisexuality. The bill does not make 
these terms clear. And until they are clear, employers are in danger of 
being sued and face enormous claims for damages and Government 
interference in running their businesses.
  The bill gives the EEOC, the Attorney General, and the Federal courts 
power to impose fines and issue decrees having to do with sexual 
orientation. Supporters say this bill will not lead to quotas for 
homosexuals. But we have heard this before. And we are in a national 
debate about affirmative action and quotas and the like.
  The Supreme Court is having to struggle with these very issues at 
this moment. This bill is based on and tied to the provisions and 
remedies of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It gives the courts the 
same powers in regard to discrimination on the basis of sexuality that 
they have in the area of race. Even laying aside the question of 
whether you can equate homosexuality with race or should, look at the 
results.

  In the area of race discrimination, we have seen the imposition by 
courts and bureaucrats of racial quotas. We will see the same thing if 
this bill passes, creating a special, protected class of citizens in 
America with quotas and even reverse discrimination based on sexuality. 
This bill makes sexuality an issue where it has never been an issue 
before.
  Currently, most employers, gratefully, do not know about their 
employees' sexual orientation and do not care, and should not. This 
bill will put an end to that, disrupting the privacy of employees and 
employer-employee relations. At a time when we are, as a society, 
questioning the value and effects of affirmative action programs, we 
should not be creating a new special category of citizens, a special 
class of citizens that will be a new basis for a new round of quotas 
and litigation.
  Mr. President, I want to refer to a specific case in particular. In 
Seattle, a CPA referral specialist, Bryan Griggs, laid off all of his 
small staff except his wife in 1994. One employee later charged Mr. 
Griggs with discrimination and sexual harassment under Seattle's gay 
rights law even though Mr. Griggs did not know the man involved was a 
homosexual. But before he cleared his name, Mr. Griggs spent thousands 
of dollars defending himself. I just repeat, Mr. President, this is the 
kind of activity for which this legislation sets the stage and for 
which I would encourage all Members of the Senate to thoughtfully 
consider.
  In light of our current experience with affirmative action, national 
quotas, et cetera, I think, on balance, Senators should join with 
myself, Senator Nickles, and others in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time of the 5 minutes I have to 
the manager of the bill, and thank her for granting me this time.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleague from 
Georgia for his statement. He mentioned the fact that he was an 
employer and he did not ask questions in the past concerning people's 
sexual orientation. I have been an employer. I never asked that 
question. I do not want to ask that question. I am afraid if this bill 
became law, you would have to ask that question.
  Looking at the statutes under title VII, it talks about the power of 
the EEOC to conduct investigations under section 2000e-8. It basically 
says: ``Every employer, employment agency * * * subject to this 
subchapter shall''--not ``may''--``shall (1) make and keep such records 
relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices 
have been or are being committed, (2) preserve such records for such 
periods, and (3) make such reports therefrom as the Commission shall 
prescribe by regulation or orders thereunder.'' And so on.
  In other words, the EEOC is going to say keep records. They now have 
to keep records. Employers have to keep records on their employment 
practices, on people they hire, on their race, on their sex, on their 
gender, and now we would include sexual orientation.
  What does that mean? It means employers are going to have to ask 
their employees, ``What is your sexual orientation? Are you a 
heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual?'' I can envision some of the 
people I used to work with in a particular machine shop, and you might 
be punched out for asking that question. I mean, that is really none of 
your business. And yet, now the Government would be asking, I believe 
in compliance with this EEOC, to keep those records.
  Sponsors of this bill will say, well, we do not have quotas, but 
frankly the records, I think, are going to be asked for. I think that 
is very intrusive. Then are you going to ask somebody, wait a minute; 
we found out here you have 100 employees and nobody said that they were 
homosexual because maybe that would not be well received in the 
particular place of employment. Maybe that is not true. Are you going 
to go back to people and say, wait a minute; we want you to tell the 
truth because we are afraid we might be sued, and we have to prove we 
have people that are homosexual or bisexual, in other words, to prove 
we were not discriminating.
  So you are going to ask people again, wait a minute; we heard you are 
* * * This is very intrusive, big Government coming in, meddling in 
areas that it has no business asking questions about, it should not be 
asking about. I hope our colleagues are aware of it.
  I want to touch on the Boy Scouts. Sponsors of this bill have said, 
that they are excluding the Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts have been sued 
without this bill becoming the law, without sexual orientation being 
added to the civil rights statutes or protections. They have been sued 
because of their policies, because they did not want to have open 
homosexuals as Scoutmasters. That is present law, a present suit. They 
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have a lot of organizations 
that maybe are not the Boy Scouts but also work with young people that 
would like to maintain a similar type of policy of having role models 
that are not avowed or open homosexuals or bisexuals and yet they would 
be sued.

  One comment, on exempting Christian organizations. This bill does not 
exempt Christian for-profit organizations. If you have a Christian 
bookstore and you are trying to sell something in Scottsdale, AZ, sell 
books in your Christian bookstore, and you have somebody come in that 
is openly gay, maybe it is written on their T-shirt or somehow it is 
very much communicated and you do not want to hire them, you are 
subject to suit. You can be sued not only for compensatory damages but 
for punitive damages. The

[[Page S10005]]

big hand of the Federal Government will come in and say, ``Mr. Employer 
of XYZ Christian bookstore or Jewish bookstore, you must employ this 
person even though their sexual orientation is very contradictory to 
your personal and religious convictions. You must employ them or you 
can be sued.'' I find that very offensive. I hope we will not go so far 
as to do that. I am afraid that is exactly what we would do if we pass 
this bill.
  I understand some of the motivation that some of the people have. I 
think this debate has been conducted very well. I just want to say that 
people who oppose this legislation I do not believe are bigoted. I 
think they are trying to protect an individual's right to protect their 
religious convictions and organizations--organizations like the Boy 
Scouts, organizations like a cheerleading camp or a children's camp or 
a day care center, or Christian bookstore. We want to at least protect 
their right that if they want to make sure they have role models who 
are not bisexual or openly homosexual amongst kids and so on, they 
would have the right to have that and maintain their policies, without 
the big hand of the Federal Government coming in and saying, ``No, you 
are subjected to not only compensatory damages but punitive damages and 
all the legal fees that would come with that.''
  I urge my colleagues when we vote on Tuesday to please vote ``no'' on 
this legislation. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased to return to the floor to add a note to 
the discussion which has continued since I left the floor. There has 
been further debate about how the bill exempts organizations like the 
U.S. military, and exempts, properly so, I think, private schools, and 
it attempts to exempt the Boy Scouts.
  Since I pointed that out and said basically I thought those were good 
exemptions, I thought the same reasons for exempting them should exempt 
the rest of the culture. Why impose something that would threaten the 
Boy Scouts or threaten the U.S. military, or threaten private nonprofit 
schools? Why impose those kinds of things on the rest of the culture?
  After I left the floor the allegation was made that the arguments 
against this bill flowed from bigotry and could be characterized as 
cheap shots because we would exempt the entire culture. I guess I just 
have one question to ask: If it is bigotry to exempt the entire 
culture, is it small-time bigotry to exempt the Boy Scouts? Is it 
small-time bigotry to exempt limited portions of the culture? In my 
judgment, it is not. I think it is a mistake to suggest it is bigotry 
to oppose this bill.
  I think that there are real problems with the underlying principle of 
this bill, and that those problems are understood, and as a result we 
attempt to exempt organizations like the Boy Scouts. We exempt the U.S. 
military because we do not want to subject it to some of the problems 
that would attend its application. I think those of us who oppose this 
bill are not bigots or taking cheap shots or cheaper shots. If it is a 
cheap shot to exempt the entire culture, it must be something of a 
cheap shot to exempt part of it. We are not really saying we want to 
take a cheap shot. We are saying this is not the way for us to move 
forward.
  I believe the framers of the legislation were right in their attempt 
to avoid the imposition of onerous, counterproductive regulation on a 
good bit of our culture--private schools, nonprofit, Boy Scouts, the 
U.S. military. We can ill afford to do things that impair their mission 
or their capacity. I think they were right in doing so. For those of us 
who would have a broader exemption, who believe it would be 
counterproductive overall, I think we are arguing from good faith and 
in the best national interest. That is a point which I think deserves 
to be made. It can be contradicted but I do not think it will be 
refuted.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have spoken earlier about concerns I had with this 
legislation. I agree with the Senator from Missouri. I think one can 
oppose this legislation and not be thought of as being bigoted or, I 
suggest, creating stereotypes, because I think there are some very 
troubling aspects of this bill. The subject of this bill is, in many 
ways, not easy to define.
  Let me suggest that there are several points that have been raised 
here today in the course of the debate. One, I do believe it will lead 
to prolonged litigation where there are punitive and compensatory 
damages involved that could further divide the workplace. I do not 
believe it furthers what we would most like to occur--a tolerant and 
understanding workplace. Second, there is a question about how this law 
would impact affirmative action requirements. And third, how it will 
impact on the strongly held views of employers or employees?
  I guess what we are really trying to decide here is how far we can go 
by legislating what employers should or should not do when it comes to 
firing and hiring. I do not think we can answer that easily by 
legislation. I frankly believe, as I said before, that I think every 
single one of us deplores discrimination. We should not stereotype 
anyone. I do not think that we are.
  However, I do believe that there are legitimate concerns about the 
consequences of this bill that lead me to oppose the legislation before 
the Senate. I think there are better ways to promote tolerance. I 
suggest, also, Mr. President, that I think it is very important for us 
to respect differing viewpoints in the process and to continue to hold 
respect for all individuals. I believe we can hold these views. I 
believe we can be respectful of differences and still oppose this 
legislation.
  As we consider the aspects of the debate that we have heard here this 
morning, when we vote on Tuesday, I urge those who are uncertain about 
how to vote, even though there have been arguments that have been made 
on the other side that have shown where States have had this 
legislation in place, very few cases have been brought. As the Senator 
from New York, Senator Moynihan pointed out, and Senator Kennedy as 
well, to have legislation imposing requirements in order to open 
doors--indeed, this is a different type of situation and we need to 
think carefully about what it may lead to in the future.
  I would suggest there may be some different and better paths as we 
look at the consequences of litigation on firing and hiring practices.
  For these reasons and the concerns I believe that exist, I urge all 
Senators who have some doubts about this to oppose this legislation.
  I yield back any time remaining, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, for the 
next hour, time designated is under my control and/or my designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________