[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13216-H13225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3685, EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION
ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 793 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 793
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the
[[Page H13217]]
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3685)
to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions of the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11
of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Amendment number 3 in the
report of the Committee on Rules may be withdrawn by its
proponent before the question is put thereon. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3685
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Resolution 793.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 793 provides for
consideration of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of
2007, under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule makes in order three amendments that are included in the
Rules Committee report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 and passage of this rule. By passing
this bipartisan legislation today, the House of Representatives will
take another step, important step, towards equality for all Americans.
During the 230-year-plus history of our great Nation, the march
towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes
been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed
discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender,
age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to
employment and hiring and firing and compensation and promotion, these
decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job
performance.
{time} 1300
Sometimes the fight for equality has been slow in coming indeed. This
legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual
orientation that the Congress will pass today was first introduced over
30 years ago.
It is long past time to ensure that no one in our country can be
discriminated against and fired from their job based upon who they are,
whether it is their race, their color, whether they are a man or a
woman, or whether they are gay. Private companies across America know
this and are way ahead of the politicians here in Washington.
Many of our neighbors back home would be shocked to learn that
millions of Americans can be fired from their jobs or refused work or
paid less and otherwise subjected to employment discrimination without
regard for the quality of their work and without any recourse under
Federal law. While many States, cities, and counties across the country
have outlawed job discrimination on their own, many States and
localities have not. I am proud that the cities of Tampa and St.
Petersburg that I represent have outlawed job discrimination against
gays and lesbians, but our counties have not, unfortunately.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act protects all Americans, no
matter where they live, by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire,
and refuse to promote employees based upon a person's sexual
orientation. See, in America no person should have to worry about the
security of their job because of their sexual orientation. Our country
bases employment evaluation on hard work and on a job well done. Making
employment decisions on anything else is unacceptable. In fact, 90
percent of Fortune 500 companies in the United States have adopted
policies similar to the legislation that the Congress will pass today.
And a broad coalition of businesses and community organizations
strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the
Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; Central Conference
of American Rabbis; the National Education Association; the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights; and, I am proud to say, the NAACP.
I am proud that this Congress will stand up for equality for all
Americans and stand behind our values and understanding that we do not
discriminate against our neighbors for any reason, and we should be
able to live comfortably with the knowledge that our neighbors will not
discriminate against us. The passage of this legislation will remove a
legitimate fear that exists among us that we may lose our job and be
unable to provide for our families when someone decides to exercise
intolerance and prejudices against us and our neighbors in the
workplace.
Thanks to extraordinary leaders in Congressman Barney Frank,
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Chairman George Miller, Congressman Rob
Andrews, Congressman Chris Shays, Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, and so
many others that will stand up for Americans here in this body today
and pass this law, I thank them for their leadership and their
commitment to equality for all Americans. And I agree with them that
passing this historic nondiscrimination act will bring our Nation
closer to our goal and our promise of equality for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Federal law bans job
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In
addition to Federal law, 11 States have passed laws prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,
while another eight States bar discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would extend Federal employment
discrimination protections to employees on the basis of their actual or
perceived sexual orientation.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace, and I
believe that skills and job performance are essential for determining
whether employees are hired, promoted, or dismissed. However, I do not
think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each
and every workplace operates. As a former small business owner, I know
that what brings success
[[Page H13218]]
to one company does not necessarily bring success to another.
As I mentioned, a number of States have enacted State laws in this
area. That is their right as States. Many small businesses and large
corporations have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is
appropriate as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill as written, though, raises
a number of concerns, including that it would expand Federal law into a
realm where perception, Mr. Speaker, would be a measure under
discrimination law.
On Monday, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and Members
testifying before the committee pointed out that debate on the bill, at
least in committee, had been productive and a respectful one. Mr.
Speaker, I am truly disappointed that moments later, the Democrat-
controlled Rules Committee chose to report out a rule that denies the
House and the American people the opportunity for a full and fair
debate by prohibiting 99 percent of the Members of the U.S. House the
opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments.
For the last 2 weeks, Democrat leaders have had the opportunity to
amend, alter, and change this bill. This editing and rewriting has been
done behind closed doors and is contained within the Miller-Stupak
amendment. Democrat leaders have acted to deny a public debate and to
deny Republicans the opportunity to offer an amendment similar in scope
to the Miller-Stupak amendment. This is not an open and honest way to
run the House, and it is not what Democrat leaders promised the
American people only a year ago.
This rule only makes three amendments in order, Mr. Speaker, but
buried in this rule there is a special provision, a special provision,
that allows amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules to
be withdrawn by its proponent before the question of adoption.
Mr. Speaker, what does this mean? It means that the Rules Committee
decided to make three amendments in order but denies the House a vote
on one of those amendments. I just have to wonder why the Democrat
Rules Committee is denying a vote on this amendment. My friend from
Florida was up there, and I would yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
if she can tell me why this provision is in the bill to deny the House
a vote on amendment No. 3.
I would yield to my friend if she would explain this for me.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer.
I do wish Ms. Baldwin would allow a vote on the amendment. I strongly
support the amendment, as many of those in the Congress do. But this
was her request, and this is the way the rule has been structured.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
giving me that option. I can't remember how many times I have been in
the Rules Committee talking about and asking Members who come forward
with potential amendments what their choice would be, would they like
to have an open rule or would they like to have a closed rule. And
every time I hear, at least from the members of the Rules Committee,
that the Rules Committee will decide.
Now, it sounds in this particular case that one Member decided that
she didn't want a vote on it, so we deny everybody in the House an
opportunity. The gentlewoman said that she would like to be able to
vote on this. I will give her the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have served on this Rules Committee for
a decade, and I cannot recall one instance when Republicans were in
control that a rule allowed a Member to bypass House Rules and withdraw
an amendment. I believe it is wrong for a substantive legislative issue
to be raised on the floor only to deny Americans, through their
representatives, a voice on that amendment.
Let's be clear about what is happening here. And that is that the
rules of the House are being altered to block the House from voting on
this amendment. It is clear and simple. We were elected to represent
our constituents by casting a vote and votes, and today Democrat
leaders are denying us a vote. I am extremely concerned with this
unprecedented rule and I have an amendment, and I hope the gentlewoman
will support me. My amendment would, in section 1 of the resolution,
strike the sentence which begins, ``Amendment No. 3 in the report of
the Committee on Rules.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended
to reflect the change as offered in my amendment.
Ms. CASTOR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Florida yield for
that request?
Ms. CASTOR. No, I do not.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, did I hear objection?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida did not yield
for that request.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No, the question I have, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered and adopted.
Ms. CASTOR. And I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida must first have
yielded for that request. She has yielded for debate only.
Ms. CASTOR. And I do not yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Is my amendment now before the body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The gentlewoman from Florida yielded for
debate only.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentlewoman yield to me so that
I can offer the amendment?
Ms. CASTOR. I do not yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida does not yield
for that purpose.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make this clear, Mr.
Speaker. I am asking unanimous consent to have the amendment that I
described be considered. Now, if I have to engage the gentlewoman for
that determination, I would be happy to do so, but I am asking
unanimous consent that that be done. I am just asking for a ruling on
this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has yielded for the purpose
of debate only. She did not yield for the purpose of propounding a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So, Mr. Speaker, the way I understand
your ruling, then, is that I hear no objection; so, therefore, my
amendment should be made in order, and I would like to move the proper
procedure as I don't hear any objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida did not yield
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So there has been an objection?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair cannot entertain the
gentleman's request unless the manager of the resolution has yielded
for that purpose.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield? Did she
reserve the right to object and would she yield at least to explain why
she objected?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time was yielded for debate only. The
gentleman is not entitled to propound that form of unanimous-consent
request unless yielded to for that purpose.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
If I attempt to amend this, what procedure would I go through in
order to try to amend this rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the previous question were defeated, an
amendment could be offered.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Further parliamentary inquiry. Then the
only means I have is through the previous question and not to ask
unanimous consent?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Or if the gentlewoman yields for that
purpose.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield so I can ask
unanimous consent to amend the rule?
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague, but I will not yield at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not yielded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand.
Well, if that's the case, then, Mr. Speaker, I accept the ruling, and
I wish I had a more full description of why there is a problem not at
least allowing potentially a vote on amendment No. 3.
Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice but to ask my colleagues, then,
later on today to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the
rule by striking the language that I described that allows the
proponent of amendment No. 3 to withdraw their amendment before a vote.
[[Page H13219]]
{time} 1315
So, just let me be clear. When I offered this motion, by voting
``no'' on the previous question, Members will, therefore, be allowed to
show their support or opposition on amendment No. 3, which would expand
the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender
identity. This is defined in the amendment as ``gender-related
identity, appearance, mannerisms or other characteristics of an
individual, with or without regard to an individual's designated sex at
birth.'' Now, Members who choose to say ``yes,'' then, on the previous
question would, therefore, be showing their support for denying Members
of this House an opportunity to vote on that issue.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge, and I will talk about this later, but
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when I offer that motion on the
previous question.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a
Member of Congress that continuously and forcefully speaks out for
equality for all Americans, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California.
Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding, for her
leadership, and for her fairness and her diligent work on the Rules
Committee. Also, I want to thank Chairman Barney Frank and
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for their hard work in bringing this bill
to the floor today.
First let me say that I was on the floor two nights ago, and Members
of Congress so eloquently reminded us that this is National Bible Week.
So as one who believes in the Scriptures, as a Christian, and as one
who embraces what everything, Democrats and Republicans, were talking
about the other night as it relates to love thy neighbor as thyself, we
are responsible for the least of these. I know for a fact, like all of
you know for a fact, that discrimination against anyone, and I mean
anyone, is morally and ethically wrong, and it goes against the
teachings of all of our great religions.
The Baldwin amendment, which recognizes that transgendered Americans
should have all of the protections and the rights of any person in
America, should be included in this bill. It should include the Baldwin
amendment. Because if we believe in who we are as a country, and if we
believe that discrimination is wrong against anyone, then how in the
world can we leave out a significant number of Americans in this bill?
So, if it becomes law, transgendered Americans will still face
discrimination in the workplace. And we must not let up until we ban
discrimination against everyone.
I just want to say, in closing, that gender identity should not be
allowed in terms of discrimination in terms of the laws that we pass.
We should not allow discrimination against anyone based on gender
identity, based on sexual orientation, based on race, religion, age.
This is America. This is America. And I think that the Baldwin
amendment would take us one step closer to being the country and the
America that we all believe in and that we all love.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\
minutes.
You were speaking, if I heard you correctly, on the Baldwin
amendment. Now, the way the rule is structured, there is potential for
not a vote on that amendment. I'm going to offer a motion on the
previous question to allow that to be voted. Now, if I understood what
the gentlelady was saying in her remarks, she would like the
opportunity to debate that and presumably vote on that. So I would hope
that the gentlelady would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous
question.
I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. LEE. What I'm saying is I think that the Baldwin amendment should
be part of the bill that we are debating today. I believe that
discrimination against anyone in our country is wrong based on any----
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I hope
the gentlelady then will join with me in defeating the previous
question so, in fact, we can have a vote on that amendment.
Ms. LEE. As I said earlier, I believe that discrimination against
anyone is wrong in our country, and especially discrimination based on
gender identity.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, a gentleman who has
devoted a large part of his career to fighting discrimination and
prejudice in the workplace, Barney Frank from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the
sincerity of the gentleman from Washington's advocacy on people who are
transgender, and I hope that as we contemplate this strategy today
people will fully examine that.
I regret the fact that there do not appear to be the votes in this
House to include people who are transgender. And I am struck by the
eagerness, frankly, of some people to use that group as a weapon with
which to defeat the whole bill because these are people who are opposed
not only to the inclusion of people who are transgender, but who have
historically been opposed to including any protection for people at
all.
I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If the gentleman was listening to my remarks, I know he came in,
unfortunately, after I had started making my remarks, but my whole
point was suggesting that we have a process here where we can dispose
of the measure, either for or against. That's all I'm saying.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. That's all the
gentleman said, but the effect would be to try to undermine the bill.
When people who are opposed to the basic bill and opposed to the
amendment lament the chance not to vote on an amendment which would
undermine the bill, people should understand where we are.
I filed the bill that included people who are transgender. And
earlier this year, I was very proud when this House passed a hate
crimes bill which explicitly included people who are transgender. My
recollection is the gentleman from Washington voted against that.
We are in the following situation in this country: We have had
prejudices of various sorts. Sadly, prejudice increases as difference
increases. We have made progress in, I believe, disputing the prejudice
against people, like myself, who are gay. We have not, lamentably, made
as much progress in people who are transgender. I agree that the
argument is there for including everyone. I agree that there was an
argument for including legal immigrants in the SCHIP bill.
The question we have is this: If we do not have the votes to go
forward with as much as we would like to do, do we then abandon any
effort? And do we allow those who are opposed to any progress at all in
the anti-discrimination fight in this area to use a particular group as
a way to prevent progress?
Mr. Speaker, I've been voting on anti-discrimination measures for 35
years when I first joined the legislature, and I have voted repeatedly
to extend the protection to groups of which I am not a member, based on
ethnicity, based on race, based on disability, based on age. I am now a
beneficiary of the age one, but I wasn't when I voted for it. And I
wish we had the votes in this House to ban discrimination of all sorts.
I also wish that I had as much energy today as I did when I voted to
ban AIDS discrimination when it wasn't eligible. I wish I could eat
more and not gain weight. I wish a lot of things. But I will not act on
my wishes irresponsibly.
I hope we will go forward today and do as much as we can. I believe
that if we are able to muster the votes to tell millions of Americans
who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not
legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are, the message we
send to those people, the message we send to high school students who
go to school each day fearing the kind of torment that they will
confront, that that will be the most significant advance we have made
in fighting prejudice since the Americans with Disabilities Act. I wish
we could do more. And if we are able to do this, I will continue my
efforts to do more.
I am glad to see more recruits now to the effort to protect people
who are
[[Page H13220]]
transgender. I wish they were there when many of us were fighting many
years ago.
I will make this prediction, that if we go forward today and adopt
legislation that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation but
does not ban discrimination based on gender identity, some of us will
continue to fight to protect people based on gender identity, and many
of those seeking to use that issue today will be our opponents as we go
forward trying to do it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me and at
least airing in a brief exchange where I was trying to explain my
position base was on the procedure and the rule. He took back his time.
And while I think he may have conceded that that's what I was talking
about, he said something to the effect of that's not what you meant.
Now, I think he is expanding what my thought process is, but I do
appreciate the gentleman for at least yielding to me.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I simply wanted to point out that this
proposal that we be allowed to vote on this issue comes from people who
are opposed to it in all regards and who understand that the effect of
that procedure would be to undermine our ability to make any progress
at all.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I have a great deal
of respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and he is one chairman
who regularly comes to the Rules Committee and wants to have a full and
open debate.
I think that the gentleman would have to concede that this is a very
unusual step where we are self-building into the rule an opportunity to
deny a vote on an amendment that was made in order. That is contrary to
what I've heard the gentleman say many times.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. The rule gives the opportunity to
the supporters of including transgender inclusion the right to make
that decision, not its opponents.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
This is a very, very unusual procedure. And the whole point of a body
like the United States Congress is to debate and dispose of issues. We
are being denied that under the rule.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-
Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the
rule that we have before us today. Primarily, I'm opposed to the
measure's unclear wording that could easily lead to wide-ranging and
serious consequences.
This bill would prohibit discrimination, which is a good thing, on
extremely hard-to-define measures such as an individual's perceived
characteristics. I think it's the perception and the ``perceived''
language in here that is very troubling to me as a former small
business owner with up to 15 employees. It would be impossible for
employers to operate a business while having to worry about being
accused of mistreating someone based on the employee's ``perceived
characteristics.'' This ill-conceived, vague language is nothing more
than a golden ticket for America's trial lawyers. This loose wording is
also an invitation for accusations by disgruntled employees who want to
take advantage of a poorly constructed law.
Like all of my colleagues, I believe congressional policies should
strive to promote a tolerant society. I believe many Members, including
myself, would vote for it without the ``perception'' language in it.
The gentleman from Massachusetts spoke before very eloquently, as he
always does, and he said, our laws should not say that gay people are
bad people. That's not what this bill says, nor has any bill that has
come before us ever said that. When people that I come in contact with
begin to disparage individuals who may be gay, I point out to them
that, you know, you don't know whether your Aunt Jen, our son Bill,
your grandson Paul or your granddaughter may be gay, so it's
inappropriate.
You know, it's inappropriate to make disparaging comments about
anyone who is gay because people really don't know the people around
them, whether they are or whether they're not, and it's really none of
their business.
{time} 1330
However, when that quest for intolerance in this bill leads us to
costly and irresponsible ends, I think we must rethink the legislation.
At a time when America faces so many challenges, the last thing
Congress needs to be doing is finding a way to hand trial lawyers an
avalanche of litigation to cash in on. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this poorly drafted legislation. Let's go back to the drafting board
with this.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the passage of an ENDA that protects
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. I have been a lead
sponsor for proposals like ENDA every year since I became a member of
the New York State Assembly 30 years ago. I am a proud original
cosponsor of the original ENDA bill that would protect the entire LGBT
community.
I believe that civil rights are best advanced by bringing forward a
bill that adequately protects all members of the LGBT community. While
this may be risky, it is not reason to accept defeat before the fact
and to leave behind members of the community who desperately need
protection against employment discrimination.
As we have seen in many States, the failure to include transgender
people in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more
difficult to extend protections later. My own State of New York, which
enacted employment protections for lesbians and gays, has yet to extend
these protections to the transgender community.
The Senate has yet even to introduce its version of ENDA. Indeed,
even if Congress were to adopt a noninclusive ENDA, the President has
already pledged to veto this legislation. So it is not a question, as
the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of now choosing to protect a
great number of people and leaving behind a smaller number of people as
the price of so doing because we cannot pass this legislation into law
and protect anyone this year, unfortunately. We must look to the future
when we have a President who will support equality. I believe it is
important we take a principled stand now and speak with a strong and
united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in order to maximize the chance
that when we can enact an ENDA bill into law, it will be an inclusive
bill that protects everyone's rights. And we must better educate
lawmakers and the public about the issues of gender identity and
expression.
While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure
you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from
employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. No one should
underestimate the strength of that common commitment or our dedication
to seeing it realized. Transgender Americans, because of a lack of
familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment
discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from
irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford.
And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay
employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender
stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an
overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect
lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too
effeminate.'' That is not our intent, nor do we believe it is an
accurate reading of the bill, but congressional intent does not always
carry the day. Splitting sexual orientation and gender identity
disserves the entire LGBT community and invites the kind of legal
mischief that has undermined other civil rights laws.
[[Page H13221]]
The fundamental issue is this: There are still too many places where
it is entirely legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgender employees. We must bring an end to this unfair,
unacceptable and un-American situation.
When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment
introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from
discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I
will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to
uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and
inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that
includes all the people who need its help.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7
minutes to a classmate of mine, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank my distinguished friend from Washington.
Rather than comment generally on the bill here, I am going to focus
on the rule. I will talk later on the bill itself.
As a senior member of the Education Committee, we went through this
debate in committee, and I find it reprehensible that the process we
have been following increasingly in this House is to shut off debate,
that ironically in a bill that is supposedly expanding rights, we have
another narrowly drawn rule that deprived me of offering several
amendments that I offered in committee, has a gerrymandered rule for
another amendment that is unique in history, has several others put in
in the Rules Committee that are very unclear.
Let me go through a number of these different amendments. I offered
an amendment in committee that was unanimously opposed by the Democrats
in committee to eliminate the word ``perceived.'' This is a legal
nightmare. There is no other law. There is talk about how ADA has some
things vaguely familiar. But it does not say ``perceived.'' How in the
world are you going to define ``perceived''? As anybody who has any
friends who have worked with and been acquainted with people who have a
homosexual lifestyle, there are all types. This is open-ended. There is
no list here of what is perceived to be homosexual. How is an employer
supposed to figure out whether it is perceived? Does that mean if he is
a Christian and has made statements, somebody can file a suit because
they perceived they were discriminated, not based on any kind of
actions that occurred but something that was perceived? This is a legal
nightmare and a precedent that is absolutely terrible, and we can't
even vote. We can't even have a vote to strike the word ``perceived''
and have a full debate on the word ``perceived.'' What kind of an open
process is that in the House?
I also had an amendment that would have provided some protection for
Christians who have strong views in the workplace and will insert into
the Record at this point a number of cases. An AT&T employee was fired
because he wouldn't sign a statement that contradicted his religious
beliefs on accepting homosexual behavior. A man was fired at Red Cross
for not participating in Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and forcing him to
observe that. Others have been fired for other reasons.
The question is not whether you can harass somebody in the workplace.
That is already illegal. If you mock somebody, that is already illegal.
If you commit a hate crime, that is already illegal. The question is,
can you as a Christian express your views and not be persecuted? That,
yes, in a sense it is at least a plurality of Americans profess
Christianity, a smaller percent conservative Christianity, but we are
moving so far as to restrict the rights in the workplace of Christians'
even ability to hold or say anything about their views. People can't
even have Bible studies in some places it has been ruled because that
would be offensive to homosexuals in the workplace based on this law in
some cities and have been upheld in the court.
Now, moving past the two amendments that were unanimously defeated in
committee and then we weren't allowed to debate as a whole House, we
have an amendment that was added in response to another amendment from
Pete Hoekstra in committee that would have exempted Christian colleges.
It was unanimously defeated by the Democrats in committee. Then
suddenly in the Rules Committee we have it added with a religious
exemption. The problem with the religious exemption, and here I would
like to put into the Record a number of cases that show the problem
with this. Loyola University was deprived of a religious exemption
because even though it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its
president to be a Jesuit and more than one-third of their trustees,
they were denied because they didn't meet one of those criteria. A
Friends School, a Quaker school, was denied a religious exemption
because it had to have multiple proof that everybody there was Quaker
and was following every rule. A private religious school was denied for
similar type things. A business that wanted to run as a religious world
view was clearly denied the religious exemption. An orphanage by the
United Methodist Church was denied the ability because it had gone
secular. They wanted to come back and be a Methodist church again and
they were denied, and these were all court decisions, because they were
no longer purely Methodists and they didn't have a right to go back and
be Methodist. This is in addition to the 2,500 Christian bookstores in
America. Only 14 percent are run by a church. Eighty-six percent are
either for-profit or not primarily religious organizations.
Under this bill, they will be forced to hire homosexuals regardless
of the personal views of Christian bookstores. This is going to happen
in various independent organizations that are quasi-part of the church.
Sometimes the church will operate a for-profit entity, that runs as a
for-profit entity, that would not be predominantly for a religious
purpose, but the proceeds go to the church, therefore, they will
implement their church beliefs in it, even though it is a for-profit
entity. None of that is exempted under this. We didn't even get a
chance to debate this amendment. It just came in in the rule.
Now, we move to another amendment that suddenly appeared, or I guess
we will be debating here on marriage. Somehow in response to debate in
committee, they are saying that this won't affect the Defense of
Marriage Act. This is another lawsuit amendment because that is
directly contrary to the fundamental part of the bill. My amendment
tries to address part of this, but quite frankly, it is a legal
quagmire.
Then we come to amendments that are allowed. We have had some debate
on this gender equity for transgender and transvestite. Now, the
challenge here is not whether you favor it or are against it. I heard
my friend from New York say he was going to vote for it. He can't vote
for it. We are not allowed to vote for it. We have been banned from
having a debate. What happened to the day when we have a debate, you
win or lose? To come in unprecedented, I have never heard, as a staffer
or a Member, a rule coming in prohibiting in the rule a vote. This is
an in-your-face tactic as part of this bill to not let us debate the
religious underpinnings and the religious stuff, not debate
``perceived,'' not debate protections for people who are individuals,
not have a vote on transgender, and it's 5 minutes on each side to even
debate it.
This is an abominable rule. It is a precedent-setting, terrible,
terrible rule. I urge people to support my colleague Mr. Hastings'
motion on the previous question and to vote against that so we can have
some amendments to this rule and then vote against this abominable rule
because it sets precedents we will regret for a long, long time no
matter which party is in the majority.
Examples of Discrimination Against Religious Employees
Christian employees who read Bibles during ``diversity
training'' reprimanded and spend four years in lawsuits to
obtain reversal. The ACLJ filed suit in April 1998 against
the Minnesota Department of Corrections on behalf of Thomas
Altman and Ken Yackly to force their employer to rescind the
reprimands they received in 1997 after they silently read
their Bibles at a state-mandated training session called
``Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.'' The employees
contended that the training session was little more than a
state-sponsored indoctrination aimed at changing their
religious beliefs about homosexuality. Four years later, and
several appeals later, the employees were finally vindicated.
AT&T employee in Denver fired for refusing to sign company-
required pledge to recognize, respect and value sexual
orientation
[[Page H13222]]
differences within the company. In January 2001, an employee
of AT&T was required to sign a new AT&T Broadband Employee
Handbook with policies that conflicted with his religious
beliefs by condoning the homosexual lifestyle. After
notifying his supervisor that based on his religious belief
he could not sign the certificate of understanding, he was
fired.
Christian firefighter suspended for handing out tract
entitled ``The truth about homosexuality.'' Madison, Wis.,
firefighter Ron Greer nearly lost his job for giving his
colleagues a tract entitled, ``The truth about
homosexuality.'' He was suspended and ordered to attend
diversity training for violating the city's anti-
discrimination code.
Hospice worker fired by gay supervisor for expressing
Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Debra Kelly, a former
hospice worker in Philadelphia, was fired for expressing her
Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her supervisor, a
supporter of ACT-UP, a militant homosexual group, said Kelly
was intolerant and unsuited for her position.
At Hewlett Packard's plant in Boise, Idaho, an employee
with a 21-year record of meeting or exceeding expectations
was fired for refusing to remove Bible verses about
homosexuality from his cubicle. The employee allegedly posted
the Bible verses in response to a poster near his cubicle
that he perceived to be promoting GLBT relationships. HP
openly admitted that its reasoning for firing the employee
was ``his overt opposition to HP's Diversity Advertising
Campaign.''
Man fired by American Red Cross for not celebrating
homosexuality Michael Hartman was employed by the Red Cross
in San Diego. The company sent a mass e-mail to all employees
in 2005 promoting ``Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,'' urging
them to ``observe'' the celebration. Hartman, a Christian,
communicated his religious objections to his supervisors and
was promptly called in and told his communication was
``inappropriate.'' Hartmann was fired.
Oakland city employees posting a flier on a company
bulletin board forced to remove flier and threatened with
discipline. Oakland, Calif., city employees Regina Rederlord
and Robin Christy formed a group called the ``Good News
Employee Association'' and posted a flier on a company
bulletin board advertising a ``forum for people of faith to
express their views on contemporary issues of the day, with
respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.''
After a lesbian employee complained of being offended by the
flier, the city removed the flier and threatened the two
women with adverse employment action for placing the fliers
``in public view which contained statements of a homophobic
nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation
based harassment.'' A federal court upheld the city's action.
In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant
for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior
citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation
Army won't provide marital benefits to homosexual employees,
thus running afoul of the city's ``sexual orientation'' law.
When the Portland's ``sexual orientation'' ordinance was
introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that
it would merely ensure that ``people won't be fired for being
``gay.''
A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered
Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church
doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A
court agreed, saying the District's ``sexual orientation''
law overrode the school's religious freedom. It didn't matter
that neither ``sexual orientation'' nor sodomy are protected
in the Constitution or that religion is specifically
protected. In the hands of the judges, ``sexual orientation''
takes on a life of its own.
In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local
golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners,
Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature
promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local
anti-discrimination obligations.
In June, 2001, The District of Columbia's Commission on
Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to
reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was
overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees.
In Arlington, Virginia, a video duplicator had been ordered
by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to produce
video material for a lesbian activist or pay for someone else
to duplicate the videos. The videos Vincenz wanted duplicated
were two documentaries entitled: ``Gay and Proud'' and
``Second Largest Minority''. Tim Bono, argued that he could
not, in good conscience (him being a Christian), produce
material that promoted homosexual activity.
In 2006 the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled last year
(06) that members of a Christian employees group for the city
of Oakland could not use words like ``marriage,'' ``natural
family,'' or ``family values'' in email correspondence or on
posters in city offices where a wide variety of groups are
allowed to post. The 9th circuit panel decided that such
words were akin to hate speech because they made homosexual
city employees uncomfortable.
Cases Where Courts Wrongly Denied Religious Exemption
Fike v. United Methodist Children's Home of Virginia, Inc.,
547 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Va. 1982)--an orphanage founded by the
Methodist Church, trustees required to be Methodists, sought
to teach Christian doctrine and belief to the children. New
President sought to take group in more secular direction and
was fired, despite the entity's desire to recapture its
original founding mission to be a thoroughly Christian (and
Methodist) charity service. Court held it had become too
secular in the interim, and denied religious exemption.
Pime v. Loyola University--Catholic University denied the
general religious exemption under Title VII despite the fact
that it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its
President to be a Jesuit, and more than one third of its
trustees are Jesuits.
Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F. 3d 252 (3d Cir.
2007)--religious school run and funded entirely by Quakers
not entitled to early dismissal on religious exemption
grounds in an Americans with Disabilities Act case, but was
required to submit to extensive discovery demands of the
plaintiff.
EEOC v. Kamehameha School/Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th
Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 439 (1993)--private
Protestant religious school denied Title VII religious
exemption even though it had numerous religious
characteristics and activities.
EEOC v. Townley Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 859 F. 2d 610 (9th Cir.
1988)--no exemption for manufacturing company whose owner had
a clearly religious world view and wanted it to permeate the
workplace.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is
sensitive to religious organizations and our fundamental religious
beliefs and tenets, and it includes a very broad religious exemption.
In fact, we are going to debate later on the Miller amendment that, if
adopted, would make clear that ENDA exempts the same group of religious
organizations that are currently exempt from prohibition on religious
discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, we know not everyone, not every employer will agree that gay
people should be protected from employment discrimination. But for the
betterment and advancement of our society as a whole, ENDA would
overrule that judgment so that Americans are treated fairly and
equally. But nothing in ENDA or in any civil rights law that has come
before us in the history of this country affects the ability, the God-
given right of a person to hold contrary beliefs based on religion or
otherwise.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments where the
House gets to demonstrate the degree to which we are truly committed to
the unfolding of 14th amendment rights to due process and equal
protection of the law. We get a chance to determine that today. I
believe that people who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgender are entitled to the full and equal protection of employment
laws.
The principles behind the original draft of ENDA sought to embrace
the fullness of a community which has experienced significant
undermining of rights in the workplace. None of us can know, unless we
have walked in somebody's shoes, but let's imagine for a moment that
someone who presents himself or herself as being of another sex or
gender, imagine what they must go through in their daily lives. And
imagine we who take an oath to defend the Constitution would somehow
separate the people from the claims of justice and from the claims of
constitutional protection.
{time} 1345
We all love this country. We all love being Americans. But to be an
American means really standing for those constitutional principles and
really understanding that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are
something that everyone should have access to and that everyone should
have equal protection of the law and due process.
I am very concerned, as my Republican colleagues are, that the
Baldwin amendment can be offered and pulled back without a vote,
because if it was given a vote, I would vote for the Baldwin amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman
from Ohio 30 seconds, if the gentleman will yield.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I share the concern that
my Republican colleagues have that we won't have a chance to vote on a
Baldwin amendment, because I believe that this is not a Republican or
Democrat issue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I gave
the gentleman time to hopefully respond to what I am going to suggest,
[[Page H13223]]
and that is if he would vote ``no'' on the previous question, that
would be to amend the rule to allow a vote under normal rules, normal
order. So if you would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous
question, you will have an opportunity to vote on that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the newest Member, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against H.R. 3685, the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, and the restrictive, undemocratic and
authoritarian rule that the majority party has put before us today. Mr.
Speaker, I realize that I am one of the newest Members of the House of
Representatives, having been sworn in just 3 months ago, but I
recognize a totalitarian regime when I see one.
In my short tenure here, the Democratic majority has made a mockery
of the democratic process, and today's rule is a perfect example. For
you good folks at home, this is what is happening in a nutshell. The
Democrats sprung this bill on us that will grant special employment
privileges and a protected minority status to anyone who defines
themselves by their sexual orientation.
But that's not all. They gave us less than 24 hours, less than 24
hours' notice that this bill will be on the floor, because when the
schedule for this week was sent last Friday, it made no mention of this
discriminatory bill. And for good reason. They don't want the American
people to realize they are undermining America's religious liberties in
the House of Representatives.
But they didn't stop there. Then the Democratic majority decided to
rig the process to block Republican amendments to even slightly improve
this terrible and unfortunate bill. An authoritarian regime, right here
in the House of Representatives, otherwise known as the Democratic
majority.
I will vote against this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney), an outspoken advocate for equality for all
Americans.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the underlying bill and the Baldwin amendment. ENDA will offer real
protections to tens of millions of Americans now. Right now, far too
many workers go to work every day fearing that they could be fired on
the spot, no questions asked, if their employer discovered their sexual
orientation. This year, it is legal in 30 States to fire someone simply
because he or she is gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Hardworking, tax-paying Americans shouldn't be forced into the
shadows, and they should not have to live with the constant, legitimate
fear that they could lose their jobs. That is why I strongly support
providing protection from discrimination to transgender Americans, and
I will not rest until their right to live their lives free of fear,
discrimination, and intolerance is the law of this land.
Mr. Speaker, I know from my years on the city council where we worked
to pass similar legislation and my years in the women's movement that
we need to make history now and pass the underlying bill and protect
people here in America now.
No one should be discriminated against because of his or her sexual
orientation or perceived sexual orientation. And this bill will also
lay the groundwork to provide sorely needed protections in the future
to countless more Americans who need and deserve them.
This historic advance for civil rights has been more than three
decades in the making--and it has not come easy.
When Bella Abzug first introduced a sexual orientation civil rights
bill in 1974, she was able to enlist only one cosponsor, Ed Koch, my
predecessor in the district that I represent. It stood absolutely no
chance of passage.
We've come a long way since then, but our progress has been hard-
fought and incremental.
Most of our greatest legislative victories have only been achieved
step by step. The measure before us today is by no means complete or
definitive.
The sad truth is that transgender Americans need and deserve
protection from employment discrimination. All too often they bear the
brunt of brutal bigotry, and are subject to unspeakable hatred and
violence.
That is why I strongly support providing protection from
discrimination to transgender Americans. And I will not rest until
their right to live their lives free of fear, discrimination and
intolerance is the law of the land.
In 1986, when I served on the New York City Council, we succeeded in
passing legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in employment and housing. That bill had come before the
Council repeatedly since 1971. It took 15 years, but we finally managed
to pass it. It was only later that the Council enacted specific
protections for the transgender community.
Many said the 19th Amendment didn't go far enough when that passed.
While it gave women the right to vote, it didn't address a host of
social inequities between men and women, many of which persist today.
Decades after that Amendment was ratified, we passed the Equal Pay Act
and title VII. And, while we still haven't passed the Equal Rights
Amendment, I remain optimistic that our day will soon come.
The New Direction Democratic Congress passed a hate crimes bill
earlier this year that included important protections for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people. And we hope to have another important
victory here today. I'm confident these incremental successes will lay
the foundation for additional protections for the entire LGBT community
in the future.
And so, while I deeply regret that transgender Americans are not
protected by the legislation before us today, I nonetheless urge my
distinguished colleagues to support it. I do so with the knowledge and
the determination that we will be back to continue to press the fight
for all Americans to live free from discrimination.
I urge my colleagues to help make history today by supporting this
landmark legislation and taking this important step towards ensuring
that discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated
in the United States of America.
I would also like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Frank, and
Congresswoman Baldwin for their leadership in this critical battle for
civil rights.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), another outspoken advocate of equality for all
Americans.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of inclusive ENDA that
provides employment protections for sexual orientation as well as
gender identity, I am an original cosponsor of the original ENDA that
was introduced earlier this year, the legislation we should be taking
up today.
In my home State of New Jersey, we are proud to have a fully
inclusive employment nondiscrimination law. We are proud of the New
Jersey-based businesses that have corporate policies against
discrimination based on gender identity, in addition to sexual
orientation. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Prudential
Financial prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity,
not only because they believe it's the right thing to do morally and
ethically, but also they know it's a matter of corporate
competitiveness and good for their companies.
Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague John Lewis often reminds us
of the words of Dr. King, ``The time is always right to do the right
thing.'' Dr. King warned us against the tranquilizing drug of
gradualism. I am concerned that when we break apart legislation, some
pieces fall on the floor to get swept into the dustbin of history or to
be considered only years later. We should not do this to members of our
society who need and deserve the same protections as all other
Americans.
I want to thank the members of Garden State Equality, New Jersey
Stonewall Democrats, the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition for their
hard work and tireless efforts for inclusive protections. I ask to
include in the Record a letter from Johnson & Johnson Company
supporting an inclusive ENDA bill and a copy of the statement of
dissent by Representatives Clarke, Kucinich, Sanchez and me in the
committee markup of this legislation.
Johnson & Johnson
Services, Inc.,
Washington, DC, October 19, 2007.
Hon. Rush Holt,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Holt: I would like to express Johnson &
Johnson's support for H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA). This legislation is essential in
providing federal protections to prevent workplace
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity.
[[Page H13224]]
At Johnson & Johnson, we recognize employees as the
cornerstone of our success. For this reason, the company
adheres to a vigorous Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
that provides a working environment free of discrimination
and harassment based on sexual orientation. This policy is
consistent with our commitment to ensuring the respect of our
employees and guaranteeing each individual a sense of
security.
We believe that H.R. 2015 is a very important step towards
addressing employment discrimination and fostering true
equality. In addition to establishing federal protections,
ENDA legislation also creates an enforcement mechanism
through the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC).
This enforcement power has led to the monumental successes of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Government Employee
Rights Act of 1991. I look forward to working with you in the
future to achieve our mutual goal of eradicating workplace
discrimination. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may
provide further assistance.
Best regards,
Shannon Salmon,
VP, President Affairs.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, October 22, 2007.
We dissent from H.R. 3685, a narrow version of the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes
protections based on gender identity. We are co-sponsors of
H.R. 2015, the original version of ENDA introduced earlier
this year, that would prohibit workplace discrimination based
on sexual orientation and gender identity. While we agree
with H.R. 3685's objective of prohibiting workplace
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, we do not
support the decision to remove gender identity from the bill
because it leaves this legislation woefully incomplete. H.R.
3685 fails to expressly protect transgender people, who are
among the most at risk for discrimination. The decision to
strip gender identity from the bill was not based on
substantive concerns about the bill's language, but rather on
a perception that protecting this vulnerable group might
jeopardize the bill's chances for clean passage on the House
floor. We cannot support this rationale, which reinforces the
very bias and discrimination that ENDA seeks to prohibit.
Transgender individuals and their families aspire to the
same basic rights as other Americans, including equal access
to gainful employment and fair housing in safe communities.
Yet across this country, transgender people face extremely
high rates of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness.
Studies across the country reveal that transgender people
suffer a 35% unemployment rate, with 60% earning less than
$15,300 a year. As a result of this disparity in income and
employment levels, a disproportionate number of transgender
people cannot support themselves or their families, and many
are literally forced onto the streets. Every American has the
right to be free from discrimination in employment and to be
judged solely on one's performance in the workplace--not on
irrelevant characteristics such as sexual orientation and
gender identity. We are eager to support legislation that
addresses such discrimination, and we wish that we would have
had an opportunity to do so in Committee.
We believe that Congress should pursue the path that state
legislatures have uniformly followed for the past several
years, which is to pass measures that include both sexual
orientation and gender identity. Such inclusive laws have
passed on the local and state level in jurisdictions in every
region of the country. Nationally, 37% of the U.S. population
lives in jurisdictions that prohibit gender identity
discrimination. Currently, there are inclusive laws in twelve
states and over 90 local jurisdictions, including Iowa, New
Jersey, Colorado, and Oregon, which passed inclusive laws
just this year. Congress should be reinforcing these efforts
instead of undermining advancement on the state and local
level.
We have heard overwhelmingly from constituents and civil
rights organizations that passage of this non-inclusive bill
will undermine the ultimate attainment of full employment
protections for all LGBT individuals. We are not aware of a
single gay or LGBT organization that has endorsed this bill.
In contrast, over 300 organizations have formally opposed
H.R. 3685 because it omits gender identity protections.
These include national groups such as the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights,
Equality Federation, National Black Justice Coalition,
National Association of LGBT Community Centers, Pride At
Work (AFL-CIO), PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays), and the National Center for
Transgender Equality. Also in opposition is nearly every
single statewide organization that represents the LGBT
community in their state, including Equality Alabama,
Equality California, Equality Illinois, Equality Maryland,
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Garden State Equality,
Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Florida, Equality
Maine, Equality Ohio, Equal Rights Washington, and
Equality Texas.
For the reasons set forth herein, we respectfully dissent
from H.R. 3685.
Rush Holt,
Member of Congress.
Yvette Clark,
Member of Congress.
Linda T. Sanchez,
Member of Congress.
Dennis J. Kucinich,
Member of Congress.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for some conservatives to come to the
floor, I am waiting for some true intellectually consistent
conservative Members of the other party who understand that in their
mantra of government staying out of people's private lives, in their
mantra of allowing the marketplace to work, allowing people to be
judged by their hard work, by their tenacity, by their skill, I am
waiting for those people to come to the floor and say that we believe
in ENDA. We believe in the idea of not government selecting who's going
to win but letting the marketplace do it.
We believe in our friends in the private sector, 350 or so Fortune
500 companies that already practice ENDA that we are going to be voting
on today. Where are they? Where are those Members of my colleague's
party that are shamed by their record on civil rights throughout the
years and want to make it right now? Where are the Members of that
party who are going to come forward and say, I don't want to explain to
my grandkids why I was on the wrong side of another civil rights
movement? Where are those Members of that party who claim to be
conservative? Speak up now. This is your moment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), our distinguished chairman of the Education
and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, a
Member who has been outspoken in his fight against discrimination for
all Americans.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise
in support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize a point of agreement and a point of
disagreement: There is a broad and growing agreement that members of
the transgendered community should receive the full protection of the
Federal law, and many of us are committed to work to achieve that day
as soon as we possibly can. But there is a strong point of disagreement
that I have heard from the minority side about the procedure on which
we are taking up this bill.
We had a vigorous debate in the full committee about this bill and
three concerns were raised. One was the issue of the transgendered
community, and Ms. Baldwin has in order an amendment, which she will
decide the disposition of, so that issue can be raised. The second is
the scope of the religious exemption, which my friends vigorously
debated, and Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak's manager's amendment raises
that very same issue, and there will be a debate and there will be a
disposition. Finally, there was some discussion as to the impact of
this bill on the question of the definition of marriage, and the
amendment of Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak will make in order a debate and
a disposition of that issue as well.
The purpose of the House, with all due respect to my friends on the
other side, the purpose of the House is not to debate every issue for
as long as it takes until everyone is done talking. The purpose of the
House is to have a fair and reasonable proceeding and to decide, and
that is what we are going to do here.
I would just say one final thing to my friend, and I know he is going
to ask me to yield, and I will do so if he agrees to yield to me when
my time has expired. But my friend speaks with great enthusiasm to
bringing to a vote on the floor the question of transgendered people.
I would ask my friend why, for the previous 12 years that his group
has had the majority here, they never brought the issue to the floor
during
[[Page H13225]]
those 12 years if they have such intense feelings in favor.
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I would probably respond to your direct question that for
the same reason for the 20 years prior to that your party didn't bring
it up either.
But what I want to say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, the
gentleman said that the purpose of the House is not to debate every
issue. I would tend to agree with that. But I think that the gentleman
would have to agree with me that when there are propositions that are
made in order, whether it is a bill or whether it is an amendment, that
they ought to be debated and disposed of by the House and not be
covered up, if you will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the majority will have a chance to work its
will, the House will have a chance to work its will on his proposition,
and we will make a majority decision and he will either win or lose,
which I think is fair and within the rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am
glad the gentleman would do that. I hope he would join me. I am just
worried that this is so unprecedented for this to happen. That is the
point I made from the outset, and that is the point I make right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for my side, so I will
reserve my time until it is time to close.
____________________