[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16733-16734]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2013

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 815 and the pending Portman amendment; that 
the Toomey second-degree amendment be withdrawn; that the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the Portman amendment;

[[Page 16734]]

that upon disposition of the Portman amendment, the previously 
withdrawn Toomey amendment be made pending as a first-degree amendment 
to the committee-reported substitute; that a Reid second-degree 
amendment to the Toomey amendment, which is at the desk, be made 
pending; that following the reporting of the Reid second-degree 
amendment, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 236, 
H.R. 3204, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, S. 815 is pending, and amendment No. 2013 
is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2012) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Toomey amendment 
is now pending.


                Amendment No. 2020 to Amendment No. 2013

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I call up Reid amendment No. 2020.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2020 to amendment numbered 
     2013.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Reid 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                            Antiretaliation

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that an amendment was 
negotiated to clarify the exemption provided to religious organizations 
in this legislation. This is Senate amendment No. 2012.
  I understand that the intent of the antiretaliation provision in the 
legislation is to strike a balance between providing important 
protections for religious organizations because of their exemption 
under section 6(a) of pending legislation and to ensure that this 
provision does not undermine in any way current or future Federal, 
State, or local civil rights protections, such as those protections 
afforded under the laws of my home State of Vermont.
  The language of the antiretaliation provision states clearly that 
nothing in the provision can be construed ``to invalidate any other 
federal, state, or local law or regulation that otherwise applies to an 
employer'' that is found exempt under section 6(a) of ENDA. As I 
understand it, this means that an exemption for a religious 
organization under ENDA does not equate to exemption from compliance 
with any other Federal, State, or local civil rights requirements.
  In addition, this provision bars retaliation against a religious 
organization on the sole basis that the organization is exempt under 
ENDA. Application of Federal, State, or local civil rights protections 
to a religious organization exempt under Section 6(a) of ENDA may only 
be considered retaliation under Section 6(b) if the religious 
organization demonstrates that the application--through monitoring, 
enforcement or other means--is solely due to the religious 
organization's exempt status under ENDA.
  Based on this understanding, I would like to ask Chairman Harkin if 
anything in that amendment would modify the important nondiscrimination 
provision in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that this 
Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this year.
  That provision was a critical component of the reauthorization, and I 
want to make sure that nothing here overrides what is currently the law 
of the land. I also want to make sure that States like Vermont can 
still enforce their own nondiscrimination laws for violations within 
their jurisdiction, regardless of whether an entity is exempt under the 
national ENDA legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his question. He is correct, 
nothing in this amendment would modify the nondiscrimination provision 
that was included in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. 
What this amendment does is say that you cannot retaliate against an 
organization for discrimination in its hiring, firing, compensation, or 
other terms or conditions of employment if you are an organization that 
qualifies for the exemption under section 702(a) of title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act. ENDA's religious exemption does not create new 
grounds for liability or penalty.

                          ____________________