[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 82 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5630-S5631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my 
colleagues

[[Page S5631]]

as an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 
1997. I speak as a strong supporter of this legislation, because I have 
always believed that every single American deserves fair treatment 
under the law no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual 
orientation.
  As one of only a few women to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, and the 
first ever from Washington State, I understand what it means to be part 
of a group that seeks fairness and equal opportunity. I have never 
advocated for any special protection or special class, just equal 
treatment and protection under the law.
  Not long ago, many thought it would be impossible for women to serve 
in the Senate, much less elected office of any kind. It was felt that 
this was not a suitable occupation for a woman and that by simply being 
a woman, meant you were incapable of meeting the demands of the job. It 
was alleged that women would take offense to the unpleasant world of 
politics and that the presence of women would somehow jeopardize the 
work done in the U.S. Congress. While these statements may seem 
impossible to believe today, they do illustrate what many women faced. 
However, these stereotypes were overcome, and I am confident that none 
of my colleagues today would deny the tremendous contributions women 
have made here, in the House, in State and local government, and at 
every level of public service.
  People suffer when stereotypes based on fear or ignorance are used to 
justify discrimination. I do not believe elected leaders serve our 
country well if they deny any citizen equal opportunities and equal 
treatment under the law. A person's success or failure must depend on 
their qualifications, skills, efforts, and even luck. But, no one 
should be denied opportunities because of their race, gender, religion, 
or sexual orientation.
  I am continually disappointed when I hear about cases of economic 
discrimination based solely on one's sexual orientation. It defies 
logic that in today's society any employer could refuse to hire an 
individual, deny them equal pay, or professional advancement and 
subject them to harassment simply because of their sexual orientation. 
We have a proud history of ensuring basic civil rights for all 
Americans. We have enacted landmark legislation that seeks to guarantee 
equal opportunity, but we have failed to ensure that these protections 
are extended to all Americans. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act 
will correct this wrong.
  As we would all agree, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic 
origin, or religion is not just unfair, but illegal as well. ENDA would 
simply add sexual orientation to this list. It is written even more 
narrowly than current law, because it does not allow positive 
corrective 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. Mr. President, this is a reasonable 
expectation and in fact it has been adopted by nine States, many local 
governments across the country, and many Fortune 500 companies, who 
recognize that it simply makes good business sense to value each and 
every one of their employees equally. It is time our laws reflect these 
values as well.
  To my colleagues who believe this bill would result in increased 
litigation, I would 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 
of the threat of litigation? Did the Framers of our Constitution think 
about caseloads in our courts when they guaranteed religious freedom?
  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, the disabled, religious members, and racial groups 
equal protection under the law and equal economic opportunity.
  Mr. President, this 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.
  To quote former Senator Barry Goldwater, ``anybody who cares about 
real moral values understands that this is not about granting special 
rights, it is about protecting basic rights.''
  In the last Congress, we came within one vote of adopting this 
important, bi-partisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
this measure so that we can continue our proud tradition of protecting 
basic civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. If we do not pass 
this bill, our sisters and brothers, sons and daughters will remain 
vulnerable to discrimination. We can do better than that.

                          ____________________