[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2361-E2362]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 7, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, this bill does not do all I 
want, but I will support it because of what it will do.
  Earlier this year, I cosponsored H.R. 2015 because I think that in 
our country nobody should be denied a job on the basis of actual or 
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and because I think we 
need a Federal law to supplement the laws that Colorado and some other 
States have enacted to reduce or prevent such unfair discrimination.
  As a cosponsor, I hoped the House would take up H.R. 2015. So, I 
regret that instead we are considering a similar but not identical 
measure. Unlike the bill I have cosponsored, H.R. 3685 does not fully 
protect the full lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. And 
because of that, some supporters of

[[Page E2362]]

the bill I have cosponsored have suggested that it would be better for 
Congress to pass no legislation rather than to enact this bill in its 
current form.
  I understand their frustration, because I recognize that transgender 
people face particularly pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and 
society as a whole and have little protection against employment 
discrimination under existing State laws, municipal ordinances, or 
private employment policies.
  But although I share their disappointment about the bill's 
shortcomings, I will support it because I am convinced that H.R. 3685 
will improve protections for many thousands of people who might 
otherwise continue to face unjust discrimination.
  Madam Chairman, history shows that legal progress against injustice 
does not come easily or swiftly.
  For example, when Congress and the ratifying States approved the 
Constitution's 15th Amendment to try to assure the right to vote would 
not be denied on the basis of race, women were not included--and, 
although in 1893 Colorado's male voters amended our constitution to 
include women, other States excluded them until a further amendment 
took effect. Similarly, since then until the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 
and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and subsequent amendments, 
it has required repeated legislative enactments to construct the 
structure of legal protections in place today.
  Erecting that structure of protection took longer than it should 
have, but it would have taken longer still if Members of Congress had 
refused to vote for good measures because they were not good enough.
  And while I would have wished it otherwise, I think that is the 
choice before the House today.
  We can vote to further the spirit and intent of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act--which protects against discrimination against employees or job 
applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin--by expanding it to similarly bar discrimination based on sexual 
orientation. Or we can refuse to take that step because it is not the 
entire journey we want to complete.
  I want to take that step, although I know it is not the only one 
needed. So I will vote for this bill.

                          ____________________