[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16691-16692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           UPCOMING SCHEDULE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the Republican leader on 
more than one occasion, but I want to make sure all the Members 
understand that we have a 4-week work period. This is the second week 
of a 4-week work period, and we have certain work we have outlined that 
needs to get accomplished. I hope everyone understands what we have to 
get done this week, next week, and the week after.
  The reason we are pressing so much work into this limited work 
schedule is, first of all, it is necessary for a number of reasons and, 
second, this Senate has worked over the last number of years really 
hard during holidays. I have traveled, trying to get home for 
Christmas. I was here on Christmas Eve; I have done that twice. It has 
been extremely difficult for Christmas, Thanksgiving, and, of course, 
New Year's.
  It is wonderful to be able to go home to our families, our friends, 
but we also have work to do. We represent our States, and there is work 
we cannot do when we can only go home for weekends. Some of us live a 
long ways away--it takes a day to get there and a day to get back--so 
it really is more complicated for those who live west of the 
Mississippi.
  The whole point is to communicate to everyone that we are going to 
try to take Thanksgiving week off and the week after. The Republican 
leader and I really want to get that done, but we cannot do it if we 
are held up on procedural matters that are unnecessary.
  I have outlined what we need to get done. I have explained this to 
the Republican leader and explained it to my caucus on more than one 
occasion. The issue at hand is this: We have a few weekends left. We 
are going to be out Monday because it is Veterans Day. But all weekends 
until we leave here for Thanksgiving are going to be work weekends in 
order to get our work done.
  I know people have schedules, but understand that you better keep 
them pretty loose; otherwise, you are going to be missing some votes 
around here.
  We voted on EDNA last night, and we were able to move that, get past 
the cloture aspect of that. We have a way of going forward. There is no 
reason to eat up the whole 30 hours that are postcloture.
  I am just telling everybody who is in effect forcing us to do this 
that it may impinge upon the holidays, the situation dealing with 
Thanksgiving. I hope we can get out of here on the Friday before 
Thanksgiving, but it is up to people who I think have gotten into the 
habit of having unnecessary delays. I need not say more. I really would 
like, for myself personally and for the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, to have those two weekends off.


                                  ENDA

  Take a look at where we are postcloture on a motion to proceed to 
ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
  I was disappointed to read yesterday that Speaker Boehner opposes the 
Employment Non-Discrimination Act because he believes it will result in 
frivolous lawsuits. But coming from a man whose caucus spent $3 million 
in taxpayer dollars defending the unconstitutional defense of marriage 
law in court, that is pretty rich.
  Still, I thought it was important to investigate the Speaker's claim 
that protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans from 
being denied job opportunities, fired or harassed because of their 
sexual orientation or gender identity, would risk American jobs. To the 
contrary, according to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office--nonpartisan--in 21 States that have some protection against 
this kind of discrimination, relatively few lawsuits have resulted. 
Almost every State with an antidiscrimination law that prevents 
workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender 
individuals had fewer than 10 lawsuits filed between 2007 and 2012, 
according to the study. In fact, the lack of one clear and consistent 
Federal standard protecting against this harassment actually creates 
more confusions for businesses and local government.
  So I was also stunned when the Speaker said today that he wasn't even 
going to bring it up for a vote. Yesterday he said he didn't like it. 
Today he said he was not going to bring it up for a vote. If it came up 
for a vote in the House, it would pass. We can look at a number of 
different examples of this litigation aspect he raised.
  Take the example of Kile Nave, a veteran police officer who was fired 
from the Audubon Park Police Department in Louisville, KY, after 3 
years of being terrorized by his supervisors. After speaking up against 
the harassment, he was fired.
  Kentucky is 1 of 33 States with no statute preventing discrimination 
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. But Louisville 
has a local nondiscrimination ordinance, and the department had a 
written policy against sexual harassment, although it did not expressly 
protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  So Officer Nave has filed two separate legal complaints against his 
former employer. Those complaints are still pending.
  If there was one Federal law protecting all Americans from 
discrimination instead of a patchwork of ineffective and inefficient 
State and local laws, it would be simpler and less confusing for 
businesses and employees alike. That is one reason more than 100 of the 
Nation's largest companies support the Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act and why most Fortune 500 companies already prohibit persecution 
based on sexual orientation or gender identity. These companies know 
that to recruit the best and brightest employees and remain 
competitive, they must foster an environment where all workers can 
reach their full potential.
  Not only is Speaker Boehner's claim that ENDA would hurt business 
untrue, it is also callous. It fails to take into account the 
heartbreaking suffering--not to mention lost wages and productivity--
that workplace discrimination causes every year.
  When Kile Nave was hired by the Audubon Police Department, he already 
served 20 years--two decades--as a police officer with other 
departments. This is what Kile said yesterday:

       I've been a law enforcement officer since 1989 and I had 
     never experienced anything like what I experienced with my 
     previous employer. . . . But I wasn't going to let them push 
     me out of a job I loved.

  So for 3\1/2\ years Kile endured torture at the hands of two of his 
supervisors, including the chief and the deputy chief. Although 
coworkers described Officer Nave's on-the-job performance as exemplary, 
his supervisors called him derogatory names, told gay jokes in front of 
him and about him, and directed profanity-laced rants toward him. This 
is the chief and the assistant chief.
  This is what Officer Nave remembers about trying to get through the 
ordeal:

       Each day I kept thinking, `It's going to get better today.' 
     But it didn't. As a police officer you're supposed to have 
     thick skin. But it never got any better.

  Then, last year, 2 weeks after Officer Nave filed a formal complaint 
with his chief, he was fired based on charges of insubordination--
somebody who had basically been a police officer for one-quarter of a 
century.
  For the first time since he was 16 years old, Kile Nave was 
unemployed, as he is right now. He is still unemployed. Although Kile 
would love to return to police work and to doing the

[[Page 16692]]

job he loves--and he did it for a long time--no department will hire 
him with a termination on his resume.
  With one simple Federal law in place, which is the ENDA bill, people 
such as Kile could go to work without fearing such torment--and it was 
torment. Every American deserves that right and that protection. Every 
employee deserves to be judged on the quality of his or her work 
instead of on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

                          ____________________