[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 28026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1830
                 GENDER-IDENTITY INCLUSIVENESS IN ENDA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, later on this week or 
perhaps early next week, this House will embark on the latest chapter 
in our Nation's history of extending the civil rights that all 
Americans should be entitled to to one other group. We will be 
considering the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. It is an effort to 
make sure that people are not discriminated against in their workplace 
because of their sexual orientation, because of their gender identity. 
It is something that is intuitive to so many Americans, and, frankly, 
the overwhelming number of Americans. And it is an example of how 
sometimes we in this House lead on civil rights issues and sometimes we 
follow.
  In this case, it is a little bit of each. Under ENDA, we will be 
following to a large degree. Hundreds of companies, including virtually 
all of the Fortune 50 and Fortune 500 companies, already recognized 
fundamentally that it is good business to judge people by the quality 
of their work, their intellect, their drive, by what they bring to the 
business, not what their sexual orientation or gender identity is.
  Overwhelming numbers of companies, and not just companies that you 
would describe as being progressive, but companies from all across the 
political spectrum, financial services groups like American Express and 
J.P. Morgan and Lehman. You have companies like Clear Channel 
Communication, Coca-Cola, Nationwide Insurance, Nike, Microsoft. These 
are all companies that, when they write the contracts for their other 
workers, it is fundamental to them that there will be no discrimination 
based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.
  For these companies and for the 90 percent or so of American people 
that responded to a Gallup poll in 2007, employment nondiscrimination 
based on gender identity and based on sexual orientation is obvious; it 
is not even an innovation.
  But we are going to be leading in some important ways. There are 
still about 30 percent of people who respond to polls who are members 
of the lesbian, bisexual and transgender community who say that they 
experience discrimination at the workplace regularly. Some of them, 25 
percent, say they experience it on a regular basis. Why should that be? 
Is that an American value? Is it an American value to say we should 
discriminate on someone based on the sense of who they love or how they 
express it? Of course not.
  So, for those men and women throughout all 50 States, we will be 
leading later on this week when we pass the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act. But it is very important that we also realize 
that we are leading on another element to this discussion. There is an 
active discussion going on in this Chamber and elsewhere whether or not 
to include gender identity in the same category we include sexual 
orientation. I say unequivocally the answer is yes. There are people 
who every day experience discrimination because of their gender 
identity.
  Susan Stanton spent 14 years as the Largo, Florida city manager; 14 
years, obviously doing a good job, rehired, reappointed. Susan was once 
Steve Stanton. When he started hormone therapy and planned to become a 
woman, was fired.
  Diane Schroer, 25 years of distinguished service in the Army as 
David. Recorded 450 parachute jumps, received the Defense Superior 
Service Medal, hand picked to lead a classified national security 
operation. Retired and was offered a job with a private homeland 
security consulting firm. The offer was rescinded when Schroer 
explained he was transgender and wanted to begin the job as a woman.
  But the question has come up: If we can't include gender identity in 
this bill, should we do anything at all? Should we take half a loaf.
  My colleagues, I think the answer is no. I think we cannot toss this 
element of an important civil rights coalition to the side. We have to 
make sure, particularly in the context of us doing what is largely 
symbolic, there is no sense that the Senate is going to act on this, 
and certainly no sense that the President of the United States and this 
administration is going to. Maybe what we should say is we are in this 
together.
  If we are going to make a symbolic stand, the symbolic stand should 
be let's pass a one House bill with only part of the protections. Let's 
let the symbolic message be that we are sticking together, that when we 
say ``GLBT,'' we mean it. And we should do something else. We should 
also make it very clear to those watching this discussion that we are 
not going to negotiate against ourselves. We are not going to say if we 
toss this element or that element off to the side, maybe we will be 
able to get what we need. There are some things that are immutable, 
some civil rights that are immutable. This is one of them.
  We are going to stick together and pass an inclusive ENDA, or we are 
going to come back again and do it right.

                          ____________________