[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 122 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10088-S10089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE EMPLOYMENT NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, to express my strong support for 
this important legislation. I do so in the belief that every single 
American deserves fair treatment under the law, no matter their gender, 
race, religion, or sexual orientation. As one of the few women ever to 
serve in the U.S. Senate, I bring a different perspective to this 
issue. As a mother and as the ninth woman ever elected to the Senate 
and the first ever from my home State of Washington, I understand very 
clearly what it means to be part of a group who seeks fairness and 
equal opportunity.
  Not so long ago, many thought it impossible for women to serve in the 
Senate, much less elected office of any other kind. Today, I am 
confident none of my colleagues would deny the contributions women have 
made here, in the House, in the State and local governments, and at 
every level of public service.
  Mr. President, I am proud, not only that I was elected to one of the 
highest offices in the land, but also because I know now that my 
daughter will have the same opportunity.
  The point is this: She will have choices and she will have the 
opportunity, because these are the values of the American people.
  I do not believe elected leaders serve our country well if they deny 
any of our citizens these choices. A person's success or failure must 
depend on their qualifications, skills, effort, and sometimes even 
luck. Most important, their fate should rest on having the opportunity 
to test these things. No one, not one person, should be denied 
opportunity because of their race, their religion, their gender, or 
their sexual orientation.
  I know that historic debates such as this one have been very hard, 
but I say to my colleagues, change is never easy and we should let our 
past successes be our guide in the future.
  Thirty-five years ago, our national conscience was challenged like 
never before as the civil rights movement blossomed. By passing the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, we made unquestionable progress toward 
ensuring equality for all citizens. Today, none among us would deny 
that we did the right thing by outlawing discrimination based on race. 
We know we did the right thing by guaranteeing the civil rights of 
women, racial minorities, and members of every religion. The same must 
be done in this case.
  So we can be justifiably proud of our rich history of protecting 
civil rights, and we should dedicate ourselves to doing better. And 
make no mistake, we can do better. To my colleagues, I offer this 
caution: Do not be convinced by those who argue that discrimination is 
no longer a problem in the workplace.
  Every day, citizens of this Nation somewhere feel the sinister burn 
of job discrimination, be they women, racial minorities, or gays and 
lesbians. And unlike the rest of America, this latter group cannot 
today count on the protection of Federal law to ensure equal 
opportunity in the workplace.
  I recently heard the story of a woman named Nan Miguel who worked for 
a hospital in my home State of Washington as an administrator in the 
radiology department. She oversaw a small staff and worked very hard at 
her job. Three years ago, she hired a woman she believed was the most 
qualified candidate for an x-ray technician's position. She did this 
despite pressure from certain staff members who believed that the woman 
she wanted to hire was a lesbian. The new employee went on to work hard 
and did an excellent job, just as Nan expected she would.
  Unfortunately, it did not end there. One coworker in particular was 
opposed to working with a woman because of the rumors about her sexual 
orientation. Nan sought help from senior management in resolving this 
issue, but to her shock, they told her that the coworker must simply be 
responding to the discord created by the technician.
  Her employee's job performance was strong and, therefore, she felt it 
wrong to fire her. Instead, she continued to try and find a solution. 
In the end, the hospital told Nan that it would be easier for them to 
remove her than to remove her coworker. Nan was placed on 
administrative leave and subsequently fired. A short time later, the 
technician was fired as well. Only the worker who displayed intolerance 
on the job stayed on the job.
  If the same situation had occurred because the technician was 
Hispanic, because she was a woman, or because she belonged to the 
Mormon Church, the same outcome could not have happened. We would not 
even be talking about it, because today no one would question the 
competence of an employee based on those characteristics,

[[Page S10089]]

and if someone did, that employee would have recourse under the law.

  Mr. President, a moment ago I mentioned my daughter and the 
opportunities that she will have. I am also very concerned about the 
experiences of young people who may be denied those same opportunities. 
I am worried about those who must find jobs in cases where their 
parents have forced them out of the House and they are on their own. At 
a very early age, they must support themselves just to get through high 
school, let alone college. Young people are very vulnerable to 
discrimination and cannot hold jobs, and they will have an extremely 
hard time.
  I have heard real stories of gay and lesbian young adults in my State 
who ended up moving away from home, relying on public assistance or 
even considering suicide if they did not get help. They become very 
cynical about the world they live in, and they start to think that the 
regular rules do not apply to them. When this happens, we lose very 
productive members of our society. We may pay more for public 
assistance, and we deny young people the chance to pursue the same 
goals every one of us has--education, a good job and a place in the 
community.
  As I said before, current law says people cannot be treated 
differently in the workplace based on race, origin, gender or religion. 
The bill before us today would simply add sexual orientation to that 
list. It is written even more narrowly than current law because it does 
not allow positive actions, such as quotas or other preferential 
treatment. All it says is a person cannot be treated differently in any 
decision related to employment based on their sexuality--whether they 
are heterosexual or homosexual.
  Under this bill, a person could not be hired solely because they are 
homosexual, nor could they be denied a job if they are heterosexual.
  A person cannot get a raise simply because they are married to a 
member of the opposite sex, nor can they be denied a promotion because 
they marched in a gay pride parade. In short, it simply takes the issue 
of sexual orientation out of personnel decisions altogether.
  Mr. President, these are reasonable expectations and, in fact, they 
have already been adopted by nine States, many local governments across 
the country and Fortune 500 companies that recognize that it makes good 
business sense to value each and every one of their employees equally. 
It is time that our laws reflect these values as well.
  To my colleagues who believe this bill would bring up increased 
litigation, I ask these questions:
  Should we then have denied women equal rights because it would have 
increased the number of cases in our courts?
  Should we have allowed segregation to continue because it would take 
too much time and money to hear Brown versus Board of Education?
  Did the Framers of our Constitution think about caseloads in our 
courts when they guaranteed our freedom to worship?
  My answer to these questions is a strong, clear no, and I am 
surprised at the arguments against this legislation. They sound 
hauntingly familiar to the ones we have heard in the past against 
allowing women, religious members, and racial groups equal protections 
under the law.
  We have heard a lot from both political parties in the past few weeks 
about the big tent philosophy and the importance of inclusion, equal 
treatment under the law, and equal opportunity in the workplace. The 
ENDA bill gives Senators of both parties a chance to act on that 
rhetoric.
  Mr. President, this is not a conservative or a liberal issue. It is 
not about one group's protection at another's expense. It is about 
common sense, common decency, and about our fundamental values as 
Americans.
  Consider an editorial written 2 years ago by former Arizona Senator 
Barry Goldwater. He wrote that we must allow gay and lesbian citizens 
the same protections we have extended to other people to ensure their 
civil rights. He points out that ``anybody who cares about real moral 
values understands that this is not about granting special rights--it 
is about protecting basic rights.'' Like many of my colleagues on both 
sides of this aisle, I strongly agree with him.
  When Nan Miguel tells her story, she says that by treating the woman 
she hired with dignity and respect, she was following the Christian 
beliefs that she was brought up with. And I know that in my family, my 
mother and father taught us to respect other people and to treat them 
the way we wanted to be treated.
  I urge my colleagues to take the high ground on this issue. Think of 
what history will say when the 104th Congress made the decision which 
once again protected our civil rights. This is not about one group of 
people, it is about all people and our belief in one another. If we do 
not pass the ENDA bill, our sisters and brothers, sons and daughters 
will remain vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace. We can do 
better than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________