[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 109 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7255-H7261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 508 and rule

[[Page H7256]]

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4276.

                              {time}  1955


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) had 
been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 115, 
line 23 through page 124, line 2.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 105-641 offered by Mr. 
     Hefley:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901.--None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce 
     Executive Order 13087 of May 28, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 30097) or 
     Executive Order 13083 of May 14, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 27651).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and a Member opposed, each will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and 
claim the 10 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Earlier this year Bill Clinton issued two executive orders that 
mandate profound policy changes. Neither of these executive orders 
received public input and as a result, both orders contained policy 
decisions which, if left unchallenged, will have far-reaching 
implications. I oppose these orders and am offering an amendment that 
would prohibit the use of funds to implement, enforce or administer 
either of these orders.
  This President has issued 254 orders since he has been President of 
the United States. Other Presidents have overdone it, too. I think it 
is time Congress questioned his use of the executive order process. 
Tonight we are going after the misuse of two executive orders, but we 
will be back to go after others.
  The first executive order, issued on May 14, virtually ignores the 
Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This executive order, titled 
Federalism, establishes broad and ambiguous circumstances in which the 
Federal Government could intervene in matters that have traditionally 
been left to State and local governments.
  This executive order, which reverses a 1987 executive order by 
President Ronald Reagan, is nothing more than a power grab from the 
States. Adding insult to injury, the administration never consulted the 
major organizations that represent State and local government officials 
and entities. The executive order greatly impacts those constituencies 
and yet they were never consulted or warned.
  The President says that he will suspend that executive order and 
rewrite it, but ``suspend'' is very different from ``revoke''.
  The President issued another executive order in May that would amend 
the Nation's civil rights laws as they pertain to Federal civilian 
employees. This executive order would require all Federal agencies to 
apply affirmative action policies on the basis of sexual orientation.
  This action amends President Richard Nixon's 1969 executive order by 
adding sexual orientation to the race, color, religion, sex, 
disability, age, and national origin as classes of Federal employees 
which are entitled to affirmative action programs.
  This amendment that I am offering tonight, in spite of all that was 
said on the previous amendment, is not about homosexuality. This 
amendment is not about discrimination, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) said in his comments on the previous amendment. We have 
Federal law which says you cannot discriminate. No one is encouraging 
discrimination here.
  It is about the misuse of the executive order process. The process is 
not designed to circumvent the Congress. This President has tried 
repeatedly to come to Congress and add a special set-aside or carve-out 
for sexual orientation in the civil rights laws. Congress has 
repeatedly said no. Now the President just goes around us. That is what 
this is about.
  Supporters of the executive order argue that the President's mandate 
only prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the 
Federal civilian work force. I support efforts to ban discrimination, 
but this executive order does much more than simply address 
discrimination policies.
  President Nixon's executive order set forth the policy of government 
of the United States to promote the full realization of equal 
employment opportunity through, and listen, I quote, through a 
continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency.
  The Nixon order further provides that the head of each executive 
department and agency shall establish and maintain an affirmative 
program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, CRS says that that means affirmative action program. History 
shows us that this means quotas and set-asides to measure whether they 
have an affirmative program.
  Mr. Chairman, by amending the Nixon order, President Clinton's 
Executive Order does, in fact, expand our country's civil rights laws 
as they apply to Federal employees. This is a flagrant misapplication 
of Presidential power. The creation of Federal law or amending Federal 
law is the power properly invested in the legislative branch. Congress 
was ignored, and we have spoken many times about this effort.
  Furthermore, the administration's own leading civil rights official 
was not consulted. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, Acting Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights Bill Lann Lee admitted that neither 
he nor his staff had reviewed, approved or been consulted on the 
decision to add sexual orientation to the Federal affirmative action 
laws.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to stop this President, who is trying to 
legislate and govern by executive fiat. While my amendment alone will 
not overrule the President's orders, it will help restore the current 
Federal policies regarding Federalism and affirmative action and 
nondiscrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I got all the prosecutors mad at me 
earlier; I might as well get everybody else mad at me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend, and he is my 
good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). We probably have 
a voting record that is so equivalent that we almost never disagree, 
but I do disagree with him on this amendment.
  I do so because, after close examination, I have determined that the 
Clinton Executive Order, 13087, will not lead to quotas or affirmative 
action plans for homosexuality; nor will this Executive Order give 
homosexuals any special rights or a protected status under the Civil 
Rights Act. Some of the others who spoke earlier, who tried to indicate 
that, did not know what they were talking about, and they should read 
what we are referring to here.
  It simply states that the Federal Government, this Executive Order, 
will not consider sexual orientation when making hiring, firing and 
promotion

[[Page H7257]]

decisions. And homosexuals are taxpayers, too, and deserve an even 
break in terms of fairness in employment in a Federal Government that 
they pay taxes to. There is no reason for the Federal Government to 
discriminate for or against individuals of whatever sexual preference 
in civilian employment. In fact, the Federal Government has no need to 
inquire into this aspect of a Federal employee's private life.
  Mr. Chairman, I am firmly committed to protecting the rights of those 
with strong moral or religious objections to homosexuality, and I 
resent some of the statements made here earlier that people who believe 
or who are against homosexuality for religious reasons are some kind of 
bigots or whatever. They have every right to those religious and moral 
beliefs and they should not be forced or pressured to accept something 
that they believe is immoral.
  That is the reason I supported the Riggs amendment to the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill that is using Federal funds to threaten these 
people into accepting that a local domestic partner law was wrong, just 
as adding sexual orientation as a category to civil rights is wrong.
  That is not what this amendment is all about, however. In short, the 
government should neither persecute homosexuals nor promote 
homosexuality. That is a fair and honest standard, and that is why I 
oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) gave his speech, and I have great respect for him, but I 
ask him later to come back and define what sexual orientation is. I am 
not sure he can define it, or anyone else in this House, yet the 
President, in Executive Order 13087, adds behavioral characteristics of 
sexual orientation to the immutable characteristics of race, color, 
religion, sex, and national origin, even though the term sexual 
orientation has never really been defined.
  Now, what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is trying to do is 
he is trying to roll back some of these executives orders from the 
President. Whenever he feels he has to, he starts to move his agenda 
through an Executive Order. His proposals make social reforms that he 
deems necessary despite the will of this body. And the gentleman from 
Colorado is saying tonight that let us stop funding these executive 
orders. That is all he is trying to say. This is not a debate about 
anything other than to try to stop the President from issuing executive 
orders that go against the will of Congress.
  Let me just give my colleagues a thought in closing, and this is from 
the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward 
Gibbon. ``The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost 
when the legislative power is dominated by the executive branch.'' Now, 
this is right from history, 2000 years ago, so I suggest we listen to 
it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), an eminent historian.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time, whom I might add, when I was a freshman and 
he was a freshman, and I had an amendment on the floor, he supported me 
against the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of 
the Committee on Commerce, and I appreciate that.
  But, look, I oppose affirmative action. I think it divides us rather 
than joins us. I would oppose any effort to add sexual orientation as a 
protected class under the Federal affirmative action programs. That 
being said, I unequivocally oppose discrimination.
  When I hire somebody in my office, as I suspect most of my colleagues 
when they hire somebody in their office, I do not ask their sexual 
orientation when I hire them. I feel that if a person can do the job 
and give me an honest day's work for a day's pay, that is all I have to 
ask, unless, in his off time or her off time, they do something that 
brings disgrace on this great institution or on my office. Then that is 
another matter.
  I hope we will oppose this ill-guided amendment.
  If the Executive Order issued by President Clinton mandated 
affirmative action based on sexual orientation, I would support the 
Hefley amendment. This is not the case.
  All the Executive order says is the Federal government will not 
discriminate based upon a person's sexual orientation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley Amendment. The sexual 
orientation of our Federal employees is none of our business.
  Qualifications for the job should be our concern--nothing more, 
nothing less.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) in the interest of fairness.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, during the Civil Rights movement, 
thousands upon thousands of Americans joined together for a single 
cause: To fight discrimination and have all Americans treated equally 
under the law. Discrimination was not right then and it is not right 
now. Excluding someone from the workplace because of their sexual 
orientation is discrimination, plain and simple. It is wrong. It is 
dead wrong.
  The President's executive orders strengthens our Nation's commitment 
to equality. It bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is 
a simple thing to do. It is the right thing to do.
  Why? Why must we come to this floor again and again to demand 
equality for all Americans? What could be more American? It is 
unbelievable to me that 33 years after Selma and the signing of the 
Voting Rights Act we must still battle the forces of bigotry, 
discrimination and intolerance. I have fought too long and too hard 
against discrimination all of my life to go back now. We cannot go 
back. We will not go back. We must never go back.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand for fairness, stand for justice, 
stand up for what is right. Oppose discrimination and vote against this 
misguided amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hefley amendment 
and urge my colleagues to support it, and because I only have 1 minute, 
I am going to try to condense my points as quickly as possible.
  This is not really an issue, in my mind, of sexual orientation or 
not. There are two basic issues here: One is this President of the 
United States is legislating by Executive Order. He has instructed the 
entire bureaucracy to promulgate regulations that have no authority in 
law, and he is writing executive order after executive order against 
the Constitution of the United States and the concept of checks and 
balances.
  Under our Constitution, the President cannot legislate by executive 
order, and he is doing so. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is 
trying to strike down some executive orders to bring attention to the 
American people that he is doing so.
  It is, therefore, conceivable that the implementation of this 
particular executive order might require that the Federal Government 
inquire into the private lives and practices of Federal employees to 
accurately assess their sexual orientations.
  Now, most Americans believe that every human being has basic rights, 
and the American people stand for fairness, not for special breaks or 
special interests.
  I support the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I must say, with all regret to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), probably no more hugs for awhile.
  Secondly, the President has explicitly disavowed any intention of 
this leading to this kind of inquiry based on sexual orientation. Under 
the existing executive order, it covers religion, it covers AIDS. There 
have been no such inquiries.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner).

[[Page H7258]]

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, as I look around this room I see only a 
couple of people that are older than I am, and I want to talk about 
discrimination. I know discrimination when I see discrimination.
  When I was a small boy, growing up in rural Alabama, we used to go to 
the grocery store. Some of my black friends, they would stand at the 
back door and the clerk would have to come and ask them what they 
wanted and they would bring it to them. I could go in the front door. 
That is discrimination.
  I have never been in the marches like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) has been. I do not know what it is like to be in the minority. I 
do not know the life-style of gay people, but I can tell you this: 
Discrimination is wrong. It is totally wrong and we should not be 
participating in anything that discriminates against anybody going out 
and making a living for their family.
  It is absolutely ludicrous for us to be considering this amendment 
tonight, because it is about discrimination, pure and simple 
discrimination.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hefley 
amendment. The extension of new civil rights deserves to be debated 
openly, before the American people, and not implemented by an executive 
order.
  I believe that all Americans should receive fair and equal treatment 
under the law, but I fundamentally oppose granting special rights or 
privilege based on sexual orientation. The new executive order 
undermines the enforcement of legitimate civil rights based on 
immutable characteristics that have been established as requiring 
protection.
  Furthermore, this executive order would be an administrative 
nightmare. It could require Federal employees to ask applicants what 
their sexual orientation is. The thought of that is wrong and it is 
also unconstitutional.
  This executive order does not create equal employment. It creates an 
unnecessary, unwarranted and unconstitutional preference in the 
workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the American people support the 
granting of a special privilege and I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
executive order and vote for the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  Let us be very clear, folks. This Executive Order 13087 simply 
extends to gay and lesbian employees the very same employment 
protections long provided to women, to disabled seniors, racial, 
ethnic, religious minorities by an executive order that was issued by 
President Nixon in 1969.
  The executive order does not provide any special protected status to 
gay and lesbian employees. It simply protects the fundamental right to 
be judged on one's own merits.
  This is a policy that is embraced by over 300 Members of the House 
and the Senate who have stated in writing that sexual orientation is 
not a consideration in the hiring, promoting or terminating of an 
employee in their congressional offices, and the executive order simply 
applies the same policy to Federal agencies.
  Most Federal agencies, incidentally, already have their own policies 
preventing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 
through this revised executive order the President has properly 
provided a uniform policy for all agencies.

                              {time}  2015

  The executive order applies only to Federal civilian employees.
  Our country is founded on a basic tenet that all individuals should 
be treated equally and fairly. Vote against the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hefley amendment.
  The President's position is an extreme special interest position. He 
has taken the back-door approach, not going through the legislative 
process. We should maintain the proper balance between the legislative 
and executive branches of government.
  President Clinton is out of step with the majority of Americans who 
oppose quotas based on one's behavior or life-style. This executive 
order would have an impact on the private sector. Companies seeking to 
contract with the Federal Government or grant recipients would be 
required to submit to this new Federal edict.
  To protect themselves from costly lawsuits, companies will have the 
burden of proving that they do not discriminate on the basis of sexual 
orientation.
  What the President has done is extend the hand of the Federal 
Government to an interest group with a powerful, well-funded lobby, an 
interest group that believes that non-job-related behavior should be 
the deciding factor in hiring or promotion policies in our Government.
  Let us support the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  When one has been in this business for a little while, one learns 
that if one does not really have much going for them on the merits, 
they argue process. And so, I understand why my friend the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is styling this as a question of an 
overreaching of executive order powers.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The 
gentleman does not have to yield. It is up to the gentleman with the 
microphone to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has not 
yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) yield 
for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, if it does not count against my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. It does count against the gentleman's time.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Then I do not yield.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing, what this is really about on the merits is 
whether we want a country in which all Americans have access to fair 
employment treatment by their Federal Government. It is as simple as 
that.
  It is not about quotas, not about affirmative action. It is about 
whether or not we get judged on the merits of the kind of job we can 
do.
  I think it is entirely proper for the chief executive officer of the 
Federal branch of the Government, the President, to make clear that 
that is the standard for this Federal Government, for the executive 
branch. He is the CEO. It is clearly within his authority.
  And what kind of country do we really want? Do we really want to make 
it permissible for this to be the basis for the denial of jobs by the 
Federal Government to our fellow citizens? I hope not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has the right to close.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a constitutional 
scholar who opposes discrimination and also opposes affirmative action 
and will point out the difference as embodied in this executive order.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Executive order's prohibition that I profoundly believe in goes 
to the question of fairness, that we ought not

[[Page H7259]]

discriminate against people on the basis of their race or their gender, 
and least of all should the Federal Government make such distinctions.
  And so, it is deeply hurtful to those of us who believe that 
gevernment should not make these distinctions to hear the argument made 
that to ban discrimination necessarily leads to affirmative action. 
Because if we hold that, we give the strength to the argument on the 
other side of all of these arguments that I, and our good friend and 
colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), have been 
attempting: namely, to end the use of race, to end the use of gender, 
to end quotas and timetables and numerical goals on race and gender, by 
the federal government.
  The argument other people make is to say, ``Well, you know, if we ban 
discrimination, then we have got to require certain numbers or we will 
never get rid of discrimination.'' I profoundly say to them, that is 
false, that I can and am against discrimination, but I will not 
tolerate the Federal Government deciding who gets a job because of the 
color of their skin.
  And so, it is profoundly disturbing and disappointing that my good 
friend offers this amendment suggesting that by banning discrimination 
on the basis of orientation, we must necessarily be leading to the use 
of quotas and affirmative action and numbers.
  To all of my friends who are colleagues in this battle against the 
rule that Government looks at the color of our skin, think about how 
wrong it is to say that the Government should look and ban us from 
opportunities on the basis of our orientation as well.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Hefley amendment.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.
  Executive Orders 11478 and 13087 are based on the notion that job 
performance should be the sole measure of a person's fitness to work. 
Supporters of this amendment want us to believe that this fundamental 
tenet of our American culture is radical and subversive. Somehow, they 
want us to believe, making it clear that the Administration will hire 
and retain the best people for the job is dangerous.
  By adding sexual orientation to the list of factors irrelevant to 
hiring and promotion decisions, President Clinton simply clarifies a 
long-standing interpretation of an Executive Order issued thirty years 
ago by President Nixon. This is hardly a change in policy, but if this 
small clarification improves the comfort and morale of one federal 
employee, it is worth our fervent support.
  I believe this Executive Order will have a more tangible impact, as 
well. Anyone who has ever run a business knows that good morale 
improves productivity and attracts the brightest, best people.
  I am proud to say that throughout my public service career, at 
Multnomah County, and in the City of Portland, we have had similar 
policies of non-discrimination. In 1991, the Portland City Council, 
believing that what was good for workers was good for work, prohibited 
discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe that policy had a 
significant impact on the effectiveness of employees throughout the 
City.
  The continuing assault on gay and lesbian citizens by some of my 
colleagues is unfortunate and undeserved. No employee should be 
discriminated against because of sexual orientation. The government 
should lead by example. I applaud Executive Order 13087 and urge 
rejection of the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Hefley 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue 
tonight. Representative Hefley's amendment attempts to nullify the 
effect of President Clinton's May 28, 1998 Executive Order which added 
sexual orientation to the nondiscrimination policy of the Federal 
Government.
  President Clinton's executive order broke no new ground and did not 
create new law. It simply amended the existing federal executive order 
governing equal employment opportunity by adding the term sexual 
orientation and therefore including gays and lesbians within the 
nondiscrimination policies of Federal agencies and offices.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure that my colleagues would agree that we should 
base our review of federal employees on their job performance, not 
their sexual orientation. And like my colleagues, I believe in 
fairness. All of us are diminished when individuals are prevented from 
contributing the full measure of their talent and ability to society. 
Those of us who oppose the Hefley amendment are not alone. 72% of our 
nation's citizens as polled in the Wall Street Journal support 
President Clinton's anti-gay bias in federal agencies.
  That gays and lesbians face a hostile climate at their jobs and 
elsewhere is undisputed. In 1997, an American Psychological Association 
report found that many employers openly admit they would discriminate 
against a homosexual employee. A survey of 91 employers demonstrated 
that 18% would fire, 27% would refuse to hire, and 26% would refuse to 
promote a person perceived to be gay.
  In my own home State of Texas, two former employees of the Texas 
governor's office filed a lawsuit in Austin alleging that their former 
supervisor used hostile language to describe victims assistance 
language and attitudes towards gays and lesbians by the division's 
executive director. This type of discrimination should shock all of us, 
but unfortunately, gays and lesbians are still openly discriminated 
against in our society.
  Not only will President Clinton's Executive Order 13087 help end 
discrimination against federal workers, it will set an example that 
will help combat employment discrimination everywhere. No person should 
be denied a job or fired because he or she is gay. 84% of our citizens 
support equal rights in employment. Shouldn't we? I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this bill and to work to end discrimination against gays and 
lesbians across our country.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment No. 39, which would have covered the same grounds precisely 
that we are covering here this evening with regard to the Hefley 
amendment and which was covered in large part during the previous 
debate on Executive Order 13083 by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) be rescinded.
  I urge all Members to support the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley), who would have supported my stand-alone amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that everyone today is agreed 
that we do not want to have discrimination in our country and 
particularly by the Federal Government. I fought that as a prosecutor, 
as a private attorney, and I think we agree that should not take place.
  But there is a legitimate concern that this goes beyond 
consideration, there is more there. The gentleman from California 
raised a question. Well, it does not.

[[Page H7260]]

  But I look at the executive order very simply that this is the Nixon 
executive order that was amended to include sexual orientation. If we 
include that, section 1 says that part of this is policy of government 
to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunities 
through a continuing and affirmative action program in each executive 
department and agency.
  The good lawyer understands that this can be interpreted to say that 
we are going to have an affirmative action program for these 
categories. It might not be the case.
  The second point is that when I asked the Acting Attorney General 
Bill Lann Lee on Civil Rights, ``were you ever asked to review this by 
the Clinton administration prior to the adoption, this dramatic 
change?'' and his answer was, ``I was never consulted. I was never 
asked to review this change in the civil rights policy of our Federal 
Government.''
  I think that this major change deserves some hearings in Congress, 
deserves some thought, and certainly deserves some debate about this 
executive order. I support the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. Moran of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. 
Don't let proponents of this amendment deceive you into thinking this 
is a complicated issue. It is very straightforward. It is simply about 
equal opportunity. Equal rights. Anti-discrimination. The President's 
executive order provides no additional ``special privileges'' for any 
``special interest group.'' It clearly prohibits the federal government 
from considering sexual orientation in employment decisions.
  This has been the policy for most federal agencies and offices but 
has not been uniformly stated for all federal employment agencies. As 
the body charged with determining terms of employment for federal 
employees, we have a grave responsibility in leading the effort to 
break down the walls of discrimination in employment. The fact that we 
are charged with legislating equal opportunity labor practices for all 
employers throughout the United States and policies that affect 
international employment practices makes this an even greater 
responsibility.
  Fortunately, this is not a complicated issue as so many that we 
consider here are. Discrimination is wrong in any form. Discrimination 
on the basis of sexual orientation is just as wrong as discrimination 
on the basis of race, religion, or sex. We shouldn't discriminate in 
federal government employment practices. It is that simple.
  The Hefley amendment would deny the use of funds for the 
implementation, enforcement, or administration of the executive order 
to include sexual orientation in the federal government's anti-
discrimination employment policy. It would allow the Federal Government 
to discriminate in its employment practices and it would show private 
employers that the federal government does not enforce its own anti-
discrimination policies. This is not the way we should treat our own 
employees and not the message we should be sending to employers in the 
United States and internationally. I urge you to support equal 
opportunity employment and the end of discrimination in the workplace 
by opposing the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Hefley Amendment 
to the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, which seeks 
to block the implementation of an executive order prohibiting 
discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian 
workforce.
  Many Federal civil employers have adopted individual policies 
prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation. Executive Order 13087 amends the existing federal 
executive order governing equal employment opportunity by adding the 
term ``sexual orientation''--thereby uniting the many existing 
nondiscrimination policies of Federal agencies.
  In short, the order extends to gay and lesbian employees the same 
equal opportunity long-afforded to women, seniors, persons with 
disabilities, and racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
  Not only do I oppose this harmful amendment, I believe Congress 
should take the issue of discrimination in the workplace a step further 
by passing the long-overdue Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA 
would provide protection against employment discrimination based on 
sexual orientation at businesses with more than 15 employees by 
creating new enforcement rights, such as the ability to proceed before 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The need for the passage 
of ENDA presents itself daily as promotions are rescinded, chances for 
employment are lost, and harassment on the job abounds.
  No one should be judged on the irrational prejudice. Congress has no 
right to prevent these individuals the opportunity to contribute the 
full measure of their talent and ability to America's workforce.
  I ask my colleagues to join with me to defend equal rights--and to 
send the strong message to the majority that discrimination in the 
workplace based on sexual orientation is wrong.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, representative Hefley's amendment to the 
Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations for FY 1999 would prohibit 
any of the funds in this bill or any other act from being used to 
implement, administer or enforce Executive Order 13087, which prohibits 
federal agencies from discriminating against individuals in federal 
hiring or in the receipt of federal grants because of their sexual 
orientation. This is an unabashed and bald pro-discrimination 
provision. It has no place in federal law, and all who have worked for 
equality or even paid lip service to the notion should be offended that 
this amendment has been offered.
  Every employer in the United States has the responsibility to be 
proactive in removing discrimination. The President has acted 
responsibly as the CEO of the federal workplace. Unfortunately, there 
is great confusion among some Americans about homosexuality and, 
astonishingly, there are some who would deny people ordinary rights 
because of their sexual orientation. I had hoped that by now Americans 
could at least agree that private consensual sexual relationships bear 
no relationship to job performance and that even those who adopt the 
unscientific view that it is appropriate to manipulate sexual 
orientation in order to change it (imagine what most of us who are 
heterosexual would think if someone tried to change our sexual 
orientation) would agree that discrimination is always wrong and should 
be off limits. The official expression of bias in our law through the 
repeal of an anti-discrimination provision should be as unthinkable as 
to gay men and lesbians as to other Americans.
  The last few months have seen an outpouring of homophobic proposals 
that insult people based on their sexual orientation. Sexual choice 
goes to the core of a person's being. Issues of sexual orientation are 
no place for amateurs acting out their sexual biases in public policy. 
History will look back on this amendment and shake its head, even as 
black people look back on similar proposals that were fraught with 
racism. Let us not replay that history with a new set of discredited 
proposals against a new group of Americans.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley 
Amendment. It is a sad day for the House when undermining equal rights 
for one group becomes the primary social cause for leading members. 
Unfortunately, this Summer we have witnessed a rising tide of verbal 
and legislative attacks on the lesbian and gay Americans among us. They 
have become the easy target of this legislative season.
  But let us put the rhetoric aside for a moment and say what this 
amendment really does. If you vote for this amendment, you are sending 
a message to federal managers and agency chiefs that it is acceptable 
to disregard talent and determination, intelligence and integrity, and 
hire or fire someone based on their sexual orientation. It is ironic 
that my colleagues, who are often so ready to criticize the work of 
federal agencies, are willing to vote that the right to discriminate is 
more important than the need for competence.
  The President's Executive order provides no special rights, no 
affirmative action, and no quotas for any group. President Nixon's non 
discrimination Executive Order did not require affirmative action based 
on age or religion, and neither does this one. This Executive Order is 
not about quotas, this is about saying discrimination has no place in 
our country. It says federal workers who happen to be lesbian or gay 
must simply be allowed to go to work every day to do their jobs just 
like the rest of us.
  I am proud to represent a city with many lesbians and gays who have 
courageously stood up for their right to equality. When an amendment 
like this is offered in the House, I think of the many able federal 
workers I have had the privilege to know and work with who are gay or 
lesbian. This bill would allow them to be fired on a whim, based on 
prejudice.
  An amendment which removes equal rights for these and other 
individuals defies logic and is without merit. And when we disregard 
merit on issues like this, we do more than affect the rights of federal 
employees. The words we speak and votes we cast in this chamber have 
broad impact--and when we send messages

[[Page H7261]]

of prejudice and intolerance, we give licence to hatred.
  There have been proud days in this House when we have passed 
legislation establishing equal rights and protections. Today, 
unfortunately, we debate whether to take a step backward, and side with 
discrimination and prejudice.
  This Summer, some members of Congress have compared homosexuality 
with a disease. But the real disease is ignorance. The real sin is 
judging people solely by their group status.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hefley Amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nothing more than an 
effort to use the Federal Government to enforce the narrow views shared 
by a few members of the radical right.
  Two months ago the civil rights movement in this country took a major 
step forward when President Clinton signed an Executive order to 
prevent the Federal Government from discriminating against employees on 
the basis of sexual orientation.
  Mr. Hefley's amendment would negate this expansion of civil rights by 
blocking the President's Executive order.
  There is a lot of misinformation being offered about the President's 
effort to extend civil rights to all Americans, so let me start by 
telling you what the Executive Order does not do:
  It does not establish ``affirmative action'' for gays and lesbians. 
Simply put, it does not require Federal agencies to hire gays.
  It does not apply to private companies. Only Federal civilian 
employees are covered by the order.
  It does not condone incest or pedophilia. ``Sexual orientation'' is 
defined as ``heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.''
  Now that we've got that clear, let me go on to tell you what this 
Executive order does do:
  This order prevents sexual orientation from being used to deny 
Federal employees a job or promotion.
  This means that Federal employees must be evaluated on the basis of 
their performance on the job--not by their sexual orientation.
  Whatever reasoning the radical right uses in support of this 
amendment, I think their real motives are abundantly clear:
  They want to promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.
  To make matters worse, they are willing to sacrifice the 
appropriations process in an attempt to further this narrow cultural 
war.
  The fact is, sexual orientation is not a choice any more than skin 
color, gender or ethnicity.
  And despite what some might think, the Federal Government does not 
have the right to dictate how people should live their lives or who 
they choose their partners to be.
  I urge my colleagues to support civil rights by voting against this 
amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, we start business in this House every day 
by pledging allegiance to a nation with liberty and justice for all.
  Without qualification, without pre-requisite, without restriction, 
``all'' means no one is excluded, and everyone is included--and that 
means gay and lesbian Americans too.
  Despite this good intention, however, our reality too often falls 
short of the ideal, and laws prohibiting discrimination in employment 
do not offer the same protections to lesbian and gay Americans in forty 
states.
  In Executive Order 13087, the Clinton Administration took an 
important and justified step to correct this inequity in the federal 
workforce. The Executive Order ensures liberty and justice for lesbian 
and gay federal employees by amending a Nixon Administration Executive 
Order to also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  By defeating the Hefley Amendment, we will affirm for lesbian and gay 
employees of the federal government the same liberty and justice 
enjoyed by their co-workers: the justice of equality; the justice of 
protection from discrimination; and the liberty to love and live 
without fear of job-loss or punishment.
  A bi-partisan majority of our colleagues in this House already have 
policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation--gay or 
straight. We know this protection is good enough for our offices and 
staffs, and I hope a majority will determine it's good enough for 
federal employees as well.
  Mr. Chairman, the economy is humming along; America is at peace; and 
the Communist threat is gone. We don't have an evil enemy lurking in 
the dark and plotting our nation's downfall--and we don't need to 
create one.
  Let's resist the temptation to demonize segments of our own society 
again by resurrecting the politics of fear and division. Let's not make 
our gay and lesbian children the new nemesis.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not gay, but people I know, love, trust and 
respect are gay. Today, I stand here today for them and for all lesbian 
and gay federal employees, and I will vote against the Hefley 
Amendment.
  This debate is not about quotas, nor affirmative action, nor secret 
agendas. It's just about liberty and justice for all.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hefley Amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to rise today in 
opposition to the Hefley amendment.
  At a time when more HMO patients are denied the care they deserve and 
three thousand more children become addicted to tobacco products every 
day, I am outraged that this Congress wastes another day of its limited 
schedule on punitive and hate-based legislation that encourages 
discrimination against other Americans.
  I resent the recent escalation of anti-gay rhetoric we are hearing 
out of Washington. That to be gay or to support gay-rights is somehow 
an anti-Christian value is absurd. One's religious beliefs should be 
based on our peaceful co-existence with, and mutual respect for, our 
fellow human beings. I am proud to call myself a Christian and I am 
proud to stand up against this discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to remind my fellow Members about a little 
recent Colorado history. In 1992 the State of Colorado passed Amendment 
2 which would have eradicated basic protections for gays. If passed 
into law, it would have had the same effect as my fellow colleague from 
Colorado's amendment today. When Amendment 2 passed we became known as 
the Hate State, a moniker that still sticks today even though the 
Supreme Court overturned this law declaring it unconstitutional. My 
esteemed colleagues, do not let us become the Hate Congress!
  I urge a vote against this amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the Executive Order Mr. Hefley seeks to 
nullify is not about providing special status to gay and lesbian 
Americans in federal hiring and employment. It's simply about providing 
them with the same protections against discrimination that are already 
in place for other Americans who have suffered from discrimination.
  Complaints about the quality of public servants are unfortunately all 
too commonplace. Surely, this amendment will drive away many applicants 
from pubic service at a time when our challenges as a nation are too 
great to justify excluding even one qualified American from helping us 
solve these problems.
  Sexual orientation should not be considered in the hiring, promoting, 
or termination of an employee in the federal government. You would 
think that this would be something we could all agree on.
  But sadly, the supporters of this amendment are making a statement 
that they tolerate bigotry and they condone arbitrary firings. This is 
but the latest of several mean-spirited efforts by the Republican 
leadership against the gay and lesbian community.
  But the vast majority of Americans disagree with the Republican 
leadership. Seventy-five percent believe that gays and lesbians should 
have the same employment opportunities as all other Americans. That's 
all the Executive Order does, despite the protestations of its 
opponents.
  Why, when we have so much important work left to address over the 
next several weeks, are we considering this issue here today? At the 
very least, this is a case of misplaced priorities. At worst, it's a 
misguided effort to condone discrimination.
  Vote against discrimination and bigotry. Vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.




                          ____________________