[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.
____________________