[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 27558-27559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS ON TRANSGENDER ISSUES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 17, 2007

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, I delivered a 
speech in the House regarding, among other things, my involvement in 
advocating for civil rights protections for transgender individuals. 
Following those remarks, I inadvertently failed to submit for the 
Record several documents to which I had made reference during the 
speech, specifically excerpts from testimony I gave before an Education 
and Labor Committee subcommittee last month in support of including 
full transgender protection in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 
and from 2 other speeches addressing transgender issues that I offered 
during previous debates on the House floor. In order to give a fuller 
picture of my views on these important topics, I ask that the documents 
be printed here.

   Excerpt From Testimony of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, Subcommittee on 
     Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, ``The Employment Non-
           Discrimination Act, H.R. 2015,'' September 5, 2007

       Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. . . . And then we have the 
     issue that my colleague so ably discussed of the 
     transgendered--and I understand that this is a new issue for 
     people. There are people who were born with the physical 
     characteristics of one sex who strongly identify with the 
     other. Some of them have a physical change, some of them 
     don't. Let me make a plea to all of my colleagues--these are 
     people--think what it must be like to be born with that set 
     of feelings. Think what it must be like, think what stress--
     what agony you go through--to defy society's conventions to 
     the extent where you make that kind of a statement. This is 
     something people are driven to do. Is there any reason why 
     any of us should make the lives of those people more 
     difficult than they already are?
       Obviously these are people who are coping and things are 
     getting better. Things are better in many ways. When I was 
     younger, a lot of things were difficult that are less 
     difficult today. But what we say here is if someone has these 
     feelings--if someone is born with one set of characteristics 
     and strongly identifies the other way--should you fire him? 
     You deny him a promotion? You say no matter how good your job 
     is, that makes me uneasy so out you go. That we say in here 
     you can make rules that those people have to abide by. That 
     they dress in a gender consistent way . . .
       There is another issue we . . . have to talk about. What 
     happens when they're all in the shower together--you know you 
     can segregate bathrooms, but in showers it's a little 
     difficult. This says no, people don't have the right to go 
     into open places where people are unclothed in a way that's 
     to embarrass people. That we talk about an accommodation, 
     again people will say, ``well you didn't do that well 
     enough.'' There's room for some fine-tuning there, but on a 
     fundamental principle--particularly for those people who are 
     themselves made the most uneasy by the transgender issue--and 
     I must say having worked with a lot of transgender people, I 
     would tell my friends you get over it pretty quickly. Because 
     what you find out is you're dealing with human beings like 
     all the rest of us--normal human beings who have the same 
     emotions and needs and strengths and weaknesses all of us 
     have. But for those who are not yet at the point of comfort 
     with them, do we really feel driven to make life harder for 
     these people?
       By the way, I just want to deal with this choice issue. No 
     one I believe in the history of the world has said, ``you 
     know what, life's too easy. I think although I was born a 
     woman I'm going to act like a man. I think that would be a 
     real lark. I think I'll just go through life that way and 
     invite physical abuse and invite all kinds of ridicule.'' So 
     that's all we're saying. And let me say here--a final 
     appeal--if there's any institution that ought to understand 
     this it's here. Let me tell you what I know. This 
     institution--we as Members--are very well served by a large 
     number of gay and lesbian employees. And many of my 
     colleagues on the Republican side know that and have, to 
     their credit, employed them.
       I wouldn't have said this a couple of years ago, but after 
     the recent incident it's now public. For years the Clerk of 
     this House was a gay man, a Republican named Jeff Trandahl, 
     whose orientation became public because he behaved in a very 
     honorable and admired way in the issue of our former 
     colleague, Mr. Foley. And the Ethics Committee saluted Mr. 
     Trandahl. You know, Jeff Trandahl is an example and I know 
     Jeff well and he's a friend whom I respect and admire and 
     given the role he played, how much easier it would have 
     been--maybe some troubles could have been avoided if there 
     were legal protections that he and others would have had so 
     they would not be subject to prejudice.
       I'll acknowledge--yes--as Mike Carney's example will show 
     and my own example will show--people say ``well you know some 
     of these gay people are misbehaving.'' Yeah, living a life 
     that you were trying to hide from others is not a 
     prescription for model behavior. And you do dumb things in 
     the closet sometimes. It's not an excuse. It's your fault 
     when you do them. But it's in society's interest to diminish 
     that pressure. And you can do that today. Thank you.
                                  ____


 Appointment of Conferees on H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization 
   Act for Fiscal Year 2005--House of Representatives--September 28, 
          2004--Excerpt From Debate on Hate Crimes Legislation

       Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. This bill criminalizes actions 
     that consist of violence against individuals. It allows the 
     Attorney General to enter under certain limited 
     circumstances, if it is a Federal crime of violence under the 
     Federal U.S. Code. It allows certain other things if there is 
     an act of bodily injury or an attempt to cause bodily injury. 
     Nothing in here criminalizes speech. In fact, when people 
     start talking about Sweden, it is a pretty good indication 
     that they do not have anything to talk about with regard to 
     the law that we are voting on in America. By the way, 
     America, unlike Sweden, has a first amendment, and the 
     Supreme Court would have banned that if anybody tried to.
       Finally, to refute that argument, which is without any 
     merit whatsoever; I mean, sometimes we get close questions 
     here. That one has no merit. There is nothing remotely in 
     this bill that threatens anybody's speech. But here is the 
     proof of it, and it also is a sign of the gross inconsistency 
     of those on the other side. We are not starting down any path 
     today, except the path of their illogic.

[[Page 27559]]

     What we are doing is adding a category to existing Federal 
     categories. There are already on the books laws that create 
     hate crimes. It is not the case that every crime is treated 
     equally.
       By the way, there was one category of people, and violence 
     against them is much more seriously treated than violence 
     against anybody else. If you are so offended by that, where 
     is your motion to amend the law and take away the statute 
     that says it is a super Federal crime to assault one of us. 
     If a Member of Congress and a private citizen are walking 
     down the street and they are both assaulted, it is a much 
     more serious crime against the Member of Congress. Where is 
     your consistency? If you mean what you say, why have you not 
     gone after that, or is it okay if you are protected, Madam 
     Speaker?
       And then we have race on the books, and we have religion. 
     Has anybody ever found a case where they say, well, once you 
     do this, someone's free speech will be impugned? Are you 
     telling me there are no racists in America? Are you telling 
     me that no one makes racially offensive remarks? People do. 
     And none of them, none of them have ever been prosecuted for 
     hate speech.
       So, in fact, you deny the reality, Madam Speaker, when 
     people say this, that there are already on the books certain 
     categories that are treated as hate crimes. None of them have 
     led to there being any impugning of people's free speech.
       Then the question is, why do we want to do this? In the 
     first place, no one is saying that if you were violently 
     assaulted, you will not be protected by the law. Why do we 
     add an additional element if it is a hate crime? And here is 
     the reason: When people are going out and singling out people 
     because of their race or their color; and, by the way, if 
     people who are white are being assaulted by people of another 
     race because of their race, that is a hate crime, and it 
     ought to be treated as such. I do not share the view that 
     that is a bad thing. It is wrong for thugs to tyrannize 
     people because of that, and it is worse than another crime 
     for this reason.
       If some individual is walking down the street and is 
     randomly assaulted, he or she is traumatized. But if another 
     individual is singled out because of her race or religion or 
     sexual orientation or gender, then it is not simply the 
     individual who has been assaulted but others who share that 
     characteristic who are put in fear.
       We do have a particular problem. The gentleman said, well, 
     you are saying gender instead of sex. Yes, there are people 
     who are transgendered in our society. They are sadly often 
     victimized. They are often victims of violence. Yes, I think 
     it is a good idea to come to their aid. And if the gentleman 
     thinks it is a mistake to go to the aid of people who are 
     transgendered who are more often than others victimized and 
     who are put in fear for that, then we do disagree, and I 
     welcome the chance to vote on it.
                                  ____


Children's Safety Act of 2005--House of Representatives--September 14, 
        2005--Excerpt From Discussion of Hate Crimes Legislation

       Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address 
     some of the misconceptions that arise when we deal with this 
     legislation. I and many of the strongest proponents of hate 
     crimes legislation are also among the strongest proponents of 
     free expression in this House, and I want to be very clear. A 
     belief in free expression means the belief in the right of 
     obnoxious people to say hateful things. This is not an effort 
     to prevent people from engaging in racist or homophobic or 
     sexist insults. I regard that to be a very unpleasant but 
     fully constitutionally protected practice, and there have 
     been mistaken assertions in this.
       There was in fact a case in Philadelphia which lent itself 
     to the interpretation that unpleasant speech was being 
     prosecuted. That case was thrown out of court, and it was 
     wrong. Nothing in this law in any way, this amendment that 
     the gentleman from Michigan, who happens to be one of the 
     greatest defenders of freedom of expression in the history of 
     Congress, nothing in this amendment impinges in any way on 
     anybody's right to say or write anything they want.
       What it says is that if you commit an act which is 
     otherwise a crime, because the predicate for this is that you 
     have to commit a physical act which would be a crime against 
     a person or property, but generally against a person, that it 
     becomes an aggravating factor if it is demonstrated to be 
     motivated, and the courts have made it clear that you have to 
     demonstrate this is an element of the crime in some way, you 
     must demonstrate that it was motivated by prejudice.
       Now the argument is, well, why is one kind of crime worse 
     than any other? Well, in fact, of course, our laws, State and 
     Federal, are replete with examples where the exact same act 
     is treated more harshly depending on the motivation. We have 
     laws that particularly single out crimes against the elderly. 
     We have laws that say if you desecrate one kind of property 
     it is worse than if you desecrate another.
       Here is the rationale for this. If an individual is 
     assaulted and the individual chosen for the assault was 
     chosen randomly, that is a very serious problem for that 
     individual, and the crime ought to be punished and the 
     individual protected. But where individuals are singled out 
     for assault because of their race, because of their sexual 
     orientation, because of their gender or identity, and 
     transgendered people are among those who have been most 
     recently viciously and violently attacked, it is not simply 
     the victim of the violent assault who is assaulted. Other 
     people in that vicinity, in that area, who share those 
     characteristics, are also put in fear. And it is legitimate 
     for us to say that when you have individuals being singled 
     out because of a certain characteristic, this becomes a crime 
     that transcends the assault against the individual. It does 
     not mean we do not protect the individual. It means that we 
     go beyond that.
       Now there are people who say, look, if you hit anybody, it 
     is exactly the same thing. I doubt their sincerity, Mr. 
     Chairman. Because, as I understand it, under Federal law, if 
     one of us were to be walking out in the street with a private 
     citizen and we were both assaulted, the individual assaulting 
     us has committed a greater crime than the individual 
     assaulting a private citizen. That is, we have one category 
     of hate crimes in that it is a more serious crime to assault 
     a Member of Congress.
       Now, by the way, it is obviously not in any way 
     constitutionally inappropriate to denounce Members of 
     Congress. We all know that. So anyone who thinks that when 
     you have enhanced a sentencing by singling out an individual 
     you have immunized him or her from criticism, just look at 
     us. I do not know anybody who is proposing that we get rid of 
     that.
       So here is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a 
     law which in no way impinges on anyone's freedom of 
     expression and says that when individuals are physically 
     harmed in part because of who they are that others who share 
     that characteristic are also put in fear, and that is a way 
     to try to diminish that form of activity.
       I should add, too, that we have recently seen more of an 
     outbreak of this sort of violence against people who are 
     transgendered, and it is important for us to come to people's 
     aid . . .

                          ____________________