note the age are two eighteen an age or two zero five the resolution is adopted without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table over the committee of the whole order house is the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h r thirty six eighty five which bookwork will report by title is bill to bring hiv and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time a gentleman from california mr miller in the gentleman from california mr mccann each will control thirty minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from california the general will suspend the house will come to order members  staff or move their conversation from the floor members will take members in the rear both chambers members in the rear of the chamber remove their conversations from the floor simply on the basis of their sexual orientation i am proud that today the house will vote on legislation to end this discrimination it has no place in american society the legislation we are considering was first introduced in the house in  seventy five more than thirty years ago and in the last three decades gay lesbian and bisexual americans have wage a courageous campaign for their workplace rights i regret that they have had to wait so long for this vote but i'm pleased that this historic day has finally arrived the employment nondiscrimination act ensures that employment decisions are based upon merit and performance and not prejudice federal law in the laws of and thirty states permit employers to discriminate against employees based solely on their sexual orientation in those thirty states employers can can fire refuse to hire demote and refuse to promote employees on the basis of sexual orientation alone earlier this answers health health employment labor pensions subcommittee heard testimonial from michael carney a highly decorated police officer officer carney was initially denied an opportunity to return to his job with the springfield massachusetts police department because he was gay fortunately massachusetts is not one of the thirty states to deny these basic rights to gay workers and officer carney was eventually able to return to his job but that was not the case with brooke waits who also testified at the hearing this waits was fired from her job in telecommunications after him ploy or discover that she was a lesbian since the state of texas allows employers to fire workers based on sexual orientation miss weight had no recourse she could not get her job back it's hard to believe that in fully qualified capable individuals are being denied employment or fired from their jobs for these completely non work related reasons and this is profoundly unfair and certainly un american unless we act to outlaw this discrimination millions of american workers will continue to live with a legitimate fear that they could be for fired or denied a job or wind up unable to provide for themselves and their families that is why it is essential that this congress act to protect the rights of all workers regardless of their sexual orientation the employment nondiscrimination act extends employment nondiscrimination protections to gay lesbian bisexual and heterosexual people it prohibits employers in employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual sexual orientation as a basis for employment decisions such as hiring and firing promotion or compensation the bill prohibits employers  subjecting an individual to different standards of treatment based upon the individual sexual orientation the bill does not apply to businesses with less than fewer than less than fifteen workers private membership clubs or the us armed forces and it does transparent i rise in opposition to h r thirty six eighty five a proposal fraught with burdensome mandates litigation traps and constitutional concerns this bill purports to prohibit discrimination in the workplace a goal to which we are all committed however the reality of this bill's consequences does not match the rhetoric of its supporters this building apart from the long standing framework and structure of the civil rights act four by a stab wishing standalone research protections exclusively on the basis of sexual orientation this new protected class would be a protections on the basis of vague and highly subjective measures that will cause confusion in the workplace and will result in costly litigation for example the bill extends protections on the basis of i quote perceived sexual orientation a characteristic that is subjective by its very definition how would an employer credibly credibly refute such an accusation this proposal could result in the exact opposite effect its supporters intend by creating new pressures on employers to consider and even document their employee's sexual orientation actual or how it is perceived in order to guard against litigation this is a highly inappropriate infringement on employee privacy and would actually increase the consideration of such characteristics in the workplace also any argument that the term perceived is already included in existing civil rights statutes is simply not true this is a new term applied to a new situation which will increase uncertainty and litigation even more broadly this bill encroaches on two fundamental principles we hold dear the free exercise of religion and preservation of the institution of marriage h r thirty six eighty five is inconsistent with the longstanding religious exemption contained in title seven of the civil rights act the bill adds additional layers of complexity in determining whether a religious organization is covered setting up highly in intrusive federal interference with the free expression of religion we understand an amendment is to be offered later today that attempts to move closer to existing title seven provisions however it remains unclear whether this amendment which has been rewritten repeatedly doesn't to protect faith based institutions on the is to a marriage the majority adds a provision that prevents employers from considering marital status as a job qualification even though they have not provided any evidence that such a limitation is necessary we are left to speculate that the real reason for this provision could be an attempt to undermine the fundamental rights of states to define protect and preserve the institution of marriage the villa stablished new limitations on hiring practices only in those states that have prohibited same sex marriage by limiting these new restrictions t states that have divined marriage as an institution between one man and one woman the bill has essentially identified traditional marriage as a form of discrimination this bill then could become the first step in a radical effort to undermine state marriage laws madam speaker this bill it's been introduced in various forms and fashions for some three decades it has been introduced in the house three separate times this year alone this is evidence of the inherent complexity that comes with such as far reaching proposal later today we will consider an amendment that seeks to broaden these new protections even further to purportedly cover discrimination based on gender identity despite the fact that this provision was stripped from the bill before it was taken up in committee there are previous but there are serious practical and legal concerns with this amendment and many questions remain unresolved this is an effort to make an end run around the legislative process considering the full scope of this proposal only when it is convenient for supporters the bill before us is a sweeping departure from longstanding civil rights law and its consequences will be far reaching a number of valid questions have been raised about how this bill will align with the six existing state and federal anti discrimination policies and those policies that have been voluntarily adopted by employers these questions remain unanswered because of that i must  today there's a chance to do something more than just say that you oppose discrimination you can vote against it i listen to the questions raised by my friend from california the ranking member of the full committee and i'd like to address them my friend says that the burdensome new mandates imposed by this bill that is not the case if an employer has fifteen or fewer employees are not covered by it at all and there's really nothing burdensome about the idea that you can't refuse to hire or fire or mistreat someone because of their sexual orientation that's that's no more of a burden than having the same rules based on race or religion or nationality my friend says there are highly subjective measures and he points to the use of the word perceived discrimination he says that when we ban discrimination based on perception of sexual orientation it creates too much confusion the reality is that precisely the same legal concept has been part of our federal law since  one federal judge in new york heard a case and that judge says that the case was based on harassment of discrimination based on her perceived disability i'm not sure this judge is qualified but most of the it does because it was judge michael new casey who's now the president's nominee to be attorney general of the united states this doesn't create new confusion it simply restates an existing principle on free exercise of religion the gentleman from california is correct there were some debate about the proper scope of the free exercise provisions in the underlying bill mr miller's amendment which we'll hear shortly imports precisely the same standard that has existed for the for the exercise of religion for the last forty two years under title seven the gentleman raises questions about marriage and says this is a radical attempt or first step in a radical attempt to redefine marriage mr miller's amendment will make it precisely true that precisely the opposite is true to miller's amendment will take the language that was approved by the house signed by president clinton in the defense of marriage act which defines for federal law purposes marriage as one man and one woman and imported into this bill finally the gentleman says this is a sweeping departure from civil rights laws nothing could be further from the truth this is not a departure from civil rights laws it's an inclusion of millions of americans who should have been included for a very long time it's a question of simple fairness it's a question that says if you're a computer programmer or a bus driver or a carpenter your job situation should be based upon how well you drive the bus or how well you colleague the gentleman from california for yielding the time i'm out of chair are rising day in opposition to the employment nondiscrimination discrimination act h r thirty six eighty five as the ranking member of the health employment labor reviewed this legislation in several different forms over the last several weeks i participated in debates and conversations and brought this bill to the floor and i have to report that this legislation is still flawed the bill before us has dropped in such a way that it creates confusion and uncertainty my colleagues offered a number of amendments to correct the inherent problems in this bill unfortunately one critical amendment opera mr souder removing the word perceived was not accepted by the majority my colleague has already introduced that point of confusion i'd like to expand on it this bill and i quote prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of an individual's actual or proceed sexual orientation unquote what does that mean perceived sexual orientation we do not know because the bill fails to provide a definition this raises a number of practical and legal concerns the term perceived as overly broad vague and will inevitably lead to increased litigation lots of increased living litigation we cannot abdicate our constitutional duty by knowingly creating a law that is so vague that the courts must necessarily determine a definition this is frankly a trial lawyer's dream i will point out that in the course of our hearings one of our colleagues did express faith in quote attorney world unquote to clarify this issue well it is kind of funny i still think that's a theme park that we want to visit employers may have difficulty in identifying non inherent characteristics of a person but could still be liable under the statute employers would be account accountable to prove that they did not make an employment decision based on their either their own perception of an individual's sexual orientation or on that person's perception of themselves i can see why attorney world could be called upon here employers would find themselves in the an enviable position of defending themselves in lawsuits by proving a negative that they did not perceive the individual to be part of a newly protected class further the term perceived does not appear in any other civil rights legislation let me be clear we're not talking about the definitions of gays lesbians and bisexuals we're talking about those individuals that may be quote perceived to be such the civil rights act protects individuals on the basis of race color religion sex or national origin no where do we see the term perceived madam chair those who favor this bill present on the floor today are motivated only by the engel's of this legislation and are failing to recognize the difficulty presented by vague terms and loose definitions we are left with a bill that is filled with confusion and uncertainty i would ask that my colleagues carefully consider the inherent problems in enforcement of this legislation and vote against h r thirty six massachusetts recognize the training that i am grateful for the obscurity of the opposition's argument i first filed a bill thirty five years ago to say that you couldn't fire someone because she was gay she was a and at the time people were very straightforward about their opposition times have changed it is no longer fashionable to say that you want to be able to discriminate against someone based on his or her sexual orientation so we now get other arguments let me say this i have heard a number of people who raise this argument that the real problem is that it says perceived i do not believe that a single one of them would change his or her position if we were to remove that they are opposed to the notion that gay men and lesbians people like me should be allowed to prove themselves on the workplace without discrimination but that's not a good argument to make sure we get perceived as the argument and it is not a serious one in the first place is arguing about having to defend a negative it's wrong both legally and factually the burden of proof is on the complainant no employer has to prove a negative it is the complainant do as the hard job of proving the positive that's why historically statutes like this well every time we try to protect some people against discrimination we go through two phases first before hand we get the most absurd exaggerations of the chaotic impact it will have after the fact they are rarely unfortunately enforced very vigorously and by the way if this perceived at this were a problem we'd ever examples of it nineteen states have laws like this on the books and how many examples have you had of the poor befuddled employer who would show on able to perceive that he is put in the dock none this is a made up if you made up by people who don't want to confront the real issue and here is the real issue there are millions of our fellow citizens madam speaker gay or lesbian who live in fear that they could be fired because they live in states where there is no such protection and we have had real examples of that and what we say today is no you can't be fired because of that why is perceived in their because otherwise you're opening a big loophole by the way this notion of proceed it is so unusual that it's in the american disabilities act and has been interpreted by several judges justice alito judge me k z and posner three radicals who have and force this so let's not hide behind this semantic that is not the genuine motivation for opposition to this bill on the part of anyone in this house what they are saying is we don't want to protect working men and women from this i was a huge in the mass campaign by a former member of this body of pursuing a radical homosexual agenda well here it is in the house today working getting a job  three minutes jealous of indiana is recognized for three minutes i thank our distinguished ranking member perceived as it is a fact a real problem because many businesses simply won't go to court obviously they'll negotiate or not bother with it that's the type of intimidation of tactics that occur but i'm against the underlying bill i've never hidden that i'm against an underlying bill i think it's a disaster for christian bookstores at least eighty five percent of whom would fall under this all sorts of basically religious rights have to be trumped by sexual rights in the workplace and that's the goal of this fact and that this gives religious rights a secondary status in in our society to sexual rights  but i want to address one other thing and i apologize for bringing directly politics into this but in my last campaign in the last ten days of my campaign a cookie cutter ad was dropped on me that started with pictures of speaker h and jerry lewis then a little clip was inserted into the ad that said speaker hastert visited my district and that i was proud to have him visit my district then pictures of duke cunningham came up and then a picture of bob ney came up then a picture of mark foley mark foley's picture came out from the screen referring to friends of mark souder and said that mark souder has friends who have even had unnatural sex with minors which was a smear on mark f nothing was ever proven even directly alleged that way but for a party that ran cookie cutter ads in order to get the majority against me every half hour referring to on natural sex with minors that wasn't proven and smeared me mark foley and others to stand down here not allow a vote on gender because they wouldn't want to divide their party on the vote not allow any direct votes on perceived not allow any religious protection votes and then to attack us for being intolerant when your party used that ad against me and others is a tad cute you'll back me up back in time the gentleman from california madam chairwoman i rise in support of h r thirty six eighty five before i came to congress i was a human resources executive and even then during the one nine hundred seventy s my company had a policy that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation it boggles my mind that it has taken congress this long to even try to catch up i had knowledge that today's bill is a good start but it is just the beginning many of my constituents want this legislation to include provisions that were in the original version of the bill and in the amendment that representative baldwin will introduce later today i share their concern that legislation before us does not protect the transgendered people transgendered people are particularly subject to workplace discrimination and nearly one half of all transgender people have reported employment discrimination at some point in their lives my home state of california is one of a dozen states which are already provides this basic liberty freedom from discrimination based on gender identity we have done so because we recognize that transgendered people like all people deserve protection today's bill is not perfect but please know that today and every day i commit to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and to keep up the fight to expand protect and expire all people i yield back jonathan california nondiscrimination act far from actually protecting new workers this legislation lad confusion and contradictions to title sevens of this existing protections we've already heard from speakers who talked about the perceived sexual orientation language that's in this this  bill into would violate the traditional basis used to determine protected status those being immutable characteristic a history of economic disenfranchisement and political power in this powerlessness all of the protected classes that currently exist in title seven meet these standards while those individuals this legislation seeks to protect are not the current title seven protections are sufficient to protect our nation's citizens expansion would only lead to confusion and more litigation the previous republican speaker talked about this he talked about the contradiction exist between sexual rights and religious rights if this legislation is approved it will certainly be challenged in court and produce a clash with religious freedom and expression and then just finally a couple two other things i would like to like to address are and i believe has  severely hurt business not only will the religious exemption fail to cover non denominational religious elementary schools high schools and colleges but it may in fact force employers to violate their personal convictions and hire individuals that they determine may not be in the best interest their business and business owners with religious conviction should be free to apply those conditions to their hiring practices and i guess i would just close with a most important in my mind this legislation i believe would undermine the institution of marriage and thereby undermine that that key institution in our culture which i believe in the an ultimate determines the strength of our entire society and that being the family institution you think about one of the reasons america so great is because moms and dads families sacrifice for that next generation i believe this legislation has the real potential to undermine the importance of families in our culture in our society and in our country and for those reasons madam speaker i would oppose legislation and i think the gentleman  opportunity of capitalism and free markets of rugged individual ism where economic success awaited anybody who is willing to play by the rules and work hard we pride ourselves as a nation that doesn't necessarily guarantee  quality in economic success but promises equality in opportunity for all americans yet today these doors of opportunity aren't open for all americans get merican scurrah and we hold the dubious distinction of being the only segment of our workforce they can be overtly denied an opportunity to contribute to our economy and earn a living and speak of corporate america has never been widely identified as a vanguard for social change but in the case of ensuring opportunity for gay americans the private sector is way ahead of the federal law by leaps and bounds at present ninety percent of americans fortune five hundred companies have policies in place similar to what would be required under enda they do it out of a sense of fairness but also because it makes financial sense their bottom line is enhanced when they can attract talented and productive workers men or women gay or straight that can contribute to the company's success without fear of recrimination or workplace reprisal the ability to apply oneself work hard and succeed has been the american dream this quintessential american right to pursue that dream should not be abridged it should not be abrogated rather it should be pro texted by the very government that has florists for more than two centuries because of that dream and see the concept of enda the fundamental american right to earn a living should be a principle around which everyone in this chamber regardless of party or ideology should be eager to embrace i yelled madam speaker and thank you to the ranking member for the opportunity to stand today in strong opposition to the end act i use that acronym because i believe it this title that this is not a non discriminating in nation act but rather a discrimination act to reverse discrimination in many ways but it certainly doesn't achieve what i think ought to be part of the society because it's a radical transformation of workplace discrimination law that stomps on the rights of private employers adds new unfunded mandates and opens the judicial gates to a herd of endless litigation pitting a newly protected class of individuals based on sexual orientation against our longstanding foundation of religious liberty will force job creators to walk a legal tight rope over which law to follow and which lot of violates a business with as few as fifty employees will be slammed as new unfunded federal mandates will provide additional protections for some employees protections that may conflict with the ability of other employees to freely express their personal and religious convictions again without attempt to discriminate or treat wrongly in fact this legislation is so poorly written and broad it will immediately serve as another way for trial lawyers to make a quick buck at the expense of small business owners more lawsuits against job creators in my home state michigan especially with recently passed tax increases are the last thing employers in south central michigan need to grow prosper and thrive in a competitive environment and is a fundamental departure from the longstanding principles of religious liberty as well principles our country was founded upon in fact this will directly discriminate against people of traditional values and long held faith principles rather than reducing discrimination this legislation will instead reduce religious freedom and increase litigation the founders of this great democratic republic would invariably run afoul of this legislation if they were alive today if you want to make a stand in favor increasing lawsuits and penalize and small business owners at the benefit of trial lawyers then by all means support this bill if you want to chill the exercise of personal religious freedom support this bill madam speaker i for one am choosing to stand for the basic principle of religious freedom chair as one who has suffered the stigma and the painful effects of state in fullest legal discrimination based on my race for the first twenty of mass sixty years and having spent all of my professional life as an attorney and elected official fighting to eradicate a lawful discrimination based on race creed color religion gender age disability and national origin and based on math study and understanding of the life and teachings of jesus christ doc can that condone discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation the only appropriate consideration in employment should be the willingness and the ability perform the job sexual orientation unless it adversely affects job performance is a private matter and should not be a basis  legal discrimination with the possible exception of the armed services and religious organizations accordingly after prayerful consideration imus there will support h r thirty six eighty is actually excludes by definition schools institutions that have been started by charges in which they set up their own boards because it would choir's that the institution has to be in whole or substantially part a substantial part control manager owner spoiled by the religion so freestanding educational institutions bookstores things like that would be opened up because there is so much language and the well the boy scouts felt they were by pass legislation or our litigation but there's opens up that whole new can of worms and we can expect more litigation against the boy scouts  to add and some of these things like you can bring a lawsuit for discrimination if you don't like your conditions i have one lawsuit that went nowhere because a woman claims she was moved from working on copper to moving on to working on alumin um and that was an insult under this that's a legitimate lawsuit if you have manifested acted or had people perceive you in such a way that they think you may be homosexual what this does is it invites people to come apply for a job and if they feel like they may not get a job make utterances like what you think i'm gay it's why you and i will have a lawsuit and i can guarantee you many lawyers will encourage their clients  employers to pay something just to make it go away training programs are listed if you don't get the seminar then you can go in and say you you you didn't give me that trip because you think i'm gagging there may be a lawsuit there in fact you could additional one minute down the track not one more minute we have a provision in here that says states will not be immune under the eleventh amendment this legislation is just going to set aside an amendment to the constitution legislatively my goodness that's that's pretty bold pretty bold and then we get down to what the real issue may be here attorney's fees on section eight saying you're getting attorney's fees all the tort reform that occurred on mad mile this will bring litigation many times over if this becomes law but the good news for the united states is we've got a provision in here the united states will not be subject to punitive damages don't have a provision like that for states and for employers so look out what this congress is now attempting to dictate is which religious beliefs and moral beliefs the majority believes are ok and which rich religious beliefs men and women of all races from discrimination by widening the circle of freedom to including those who stood outside its embrace america's strength and the character of its democracy and that is exactly what we're doing today with this vote the civil rights act of one hundred sixty four has had a profound impact on our nation but the work to create a more just equal nation that began decades ago is unfinished this morning in thirty states across this country millions of gay and lesbian americans went to work knowing full well that they could be fired simply because of their sexual orientation their job performance would have nothing to do with their being fired into many places simply being gay can cost you your job we should all be able to agree that this type of discrimination is inconsistent with american values but for too many gay and lesbian americans it is a reality this congress has a duty to make this form of discrimination a thing of the past we should be gratified by the fact that many american employers are ready to do the right thing and protect the rights of the workers many fortune five hundred companies take this type of policies and for those who say the private sector should be a gliding light for government well here's your chance to prove it some of the employers have failed to protect their workers though and so this congress has been left with the duty to make sure our values are represented our laws the employment nondiscrimination act offers basic protections that everyone enjoys and take for granted except gays and lesbians and it allows this law allows that to be true for them but more importantly this bill is yet another important step forward and suring that justice and genuine quality for every american is the law the land today i hope my colleagues will join us to pass this critical institutions marriage a federal into will provide activist judges with the legal ammunition to move toward the legalization of same sex marriage in fact state and the laws are already being used by activist judges to impose gay marriage and civil unions on the state one example is the landmark decision by the massachusetts framed court which determined that there was quote no rational basis for the denial of marriage to same sex couples and this decision used the state and the laws in their argument another example took place in vermont where the court ordered the state legislature to pass either a same sex marriage or civil union law again this state this case referenced existing state into legislation another example is the new jersey supreme court which gave the state legislature six months either passed or same sex marriage law or civil union law and the court cited new jersey enda laws in defense of this ruling although and is bad legislation on its face more importantly is just one component of a larger strategy an editorial in an activist publication recently compared this approach to building a house that explains that hate crimes legislation is the foundation and is one of the walls of civil unions is the root structure and marriage is the shingles the author chris says states quote when all the various above issues have been resolved think of all the money that would be freed up to ocus on marriage we can lobby the president and congress on repealing dom while targeting the weakest states to repeal their one man one woman amendments in quote the strategy as laid out above is clear into is merely a building block for efforts to overturn traditional marriage laws and to impose same sex marriage on sta us today i feel for purposes of unanimous consent the gentleman from new york i ask unanimous consent to put in the record my strong support for this dell and i urge my colleagues to help make history today by taking this important passes what will be doing is affirming traditional values traditional values like tolerance traditional values like minding your own business traditional values like allowing fellow americans to rise to the full measure of their ability traditional values madam speaker values that have been made this country endure and passed the test of time opportunity traditional values is what this in the bill is all about this bill has nothing to do with the institution of marriage this bill is about giving opportunity to fellow americans so that we can reap the book film benefit the talent the creativity this hard working ethic of both gay and lesbian and all americans all so this bill today makes me proud to be an american and makes me very very happy to vote for it and i do hope all of our members do  yielding i'm in opposition to the bill it goes without saying that the authors of our nation's founding document understood better than most that freedom to practice one root one's religion represented one of the most fundamental most in legal rights bestowed on us it was after all the reason that many came to america the reason that many fought to found america and the founders made sure to include the free exercise of religion among the first rights they included in the constitution but while the founders saw the constitution as a means of ensuring religious freedom and that that be protected at all levels this bill innocently and enough named the not the employment non discrimination act would actually have the effect of rolling back these protections depending on where you happen to work perhaps even worse deliberately sets out to create a constitutional conflict between one's right t religious freedom and another's right to sue you for practicing it the tension this bill could create is not difficult to foresee in practice for instance if you chose to keep a bible in your work station or perhaps even display in your cubicle a verse you found particularly meaningful the legal question is simple created by this legislation can one or more of your coworkers seeing that passage seen that bible understanding their passages there about homosexuality bring suit against you and your employer on the grounds that mere presence of religious census symbols constitutes a quote hostile workplace in which they are then forced to work the answer it seems to me depends more on on know where you work than whether or not the position on your desk is of the bible is offensive employs france for example  southwest badness university where i was the president before i came to congress would be exempt from the standards in this measure because they have a relationship with a specific the nomination but employees of either a christian bookstore or a moslem bookstore would be granted no such dispensation potentially being forced to choose between up holding the faith traditions which they are based in which they require customers and complying with a law that says the free exercise of religion can be abrogated by a whim of congress this is the wrong decision for us to expect them to make we're told however that any of the legal questions here will be decided and settled in court the very reason the constitution established this exercise of religion as the first of all the amendments is so these issues would not have to be settled by code in court there's really no reason here to create a new protected class this bill puts in this newly protected freedom it puts it on a collision course with the oldest of all the protected freedoms the freedom of religion the inevitable upshot of pitting two classes of people against each other one protected by the constitution the other by congress is litigation and lots of it we can't we don't need to create more reasons for litigation in the country we don't need to create differences from court jurisdiction to court jurisdiction we need to go back and look at this issue again we need to defeat this bill today i urge my colleagues to vote no  six and a half minutes down from california has thirteen minutes six and a half and thirteen in the gentleman continues to reserve thank you madam chair at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my friend the gentleman from indiana  when a speaker come for the house today in strong opposition to the employment nondiscrimination act however well intended the bill extends existing employment discrimination provisions of the federal law like those contained in title seven of the civil rights act to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation now let me be clear i don't condone discrimination against people for any reason whatsoever i believe in civility and decency in society  but the problem here is that by extending the reach of federal law to cover sexual orientation employment discrimination protections were in effect can wage war on the free exercise of  religion in the workplace and in effect as has been said already this sets up something of a constitutional conflict between the right to religious freedom in the workplace and another person's newly created right to sue you  practicing your faith or acknowledging your faith in the workplace and this is as as been said before a deeply enshrined tradition in the american experiment emanating as it does out of the first amendment  constitution the united states some examples under and employees around the country who possess religious beliefs that that the are opposed to homo sexual behavior would be forced in effect to lay down their rights and convictions at the door for example if an employee keeps a bible in his or her cubicle and if an employee displays a bible verse on their desk that employee could be claimed by a homosexual colleague to be creating a hostile work environment because the homosexual employees objects to passages in the bible relating to homosexuality the employers in a no win situation as well either the employer has to ban employees from having a bible at the workplace for their break time or displaying bible verses and thereby face a lawsuit under title seven for religious discrimination or the headed for the courts about which congress should not involve itself i strongly oppose the employment nondiscrimination act we must stand for the right of every american to practice their faith according to the dictates of their conscience whether it be in the public square or in the workplace and so i oppose employment nondiscrimination act and urge my colleagues to do likewise i yield back to me at that time jealous in california thirty seconds to gentleman from new jersey is right next to thirty seconds and i'm sure the record should reflect some accuracy in the point to our friends just made that the proposition that the display of a religious artifacts such as a bible in and of itself creates a hostile work gentlemen this more gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute thank you madam speaker the opponents of the h r thirty six eighty five has have asked the question what does perceived sexual orientation means it's when folk proclaim to have some sort of psychic ability to know who's gay they have so called gaydar so that a a man who perhaps a slightly built or a woman like myself who has a deep voice is for sieved to be homosexual and they could be discriminated against in the workplace i can tell you that hundreds of thousands of school children will pass through these chambers in the years to come and as the guides in the physical visitors bureau talk about the history of this chamber this will be a signature moment and i want to be identified as one of the people who stood up for the last vestige of discrimination in our country i yield back then when you factor time gentleman from minnesota groups and their reasons are opposing this an article by andrew sullivan the i gather the new republic who correctly points out that in fact this does not meet these discriminations standards in the sense of if if we were having a situation america were gays homosexuals couldn't get jobs it would be a different challenge but i want to make a couple points there's a great irony to this bill in the faith based debate we couldn't get title seven included and now the democrats have included it in this bill democrats oppose defense of marriage act and now they're putting it in this bill why does the bill exempt the military why government discriminate and private sector not discriminat e how how in the world is this going to be upheld in court to be able to hold a standard that the military can discriminate that religious groups can discriminate but christian bookstores can't discriminate clearly in this bill the majority has has tried to provide political cover a fig leaf so they can try to move the bill through knowing full well that once you have the underlying bill these other protections are going to be stripped out over time they can't it's internally inconsistent and ironic that the very people who will but their volunteers don't but this raises the question what if they get the mileage reimbursed what if they get expense reimbursement it leads to a question what if they go on and off the payroll what about if they get a tax deduction a lot of the reasons religious organizations are concerned about this is that's in fact a government benefit once we have a law that states discrimination against homosexuals is wrong this is obviously open to court interpretation as many others are this is a bill fraught with so many problems it should not see the light of day  believe that we should be outlawing discrimination against gay lesbian individuals what they're upset about is that most of the handles that they thought they could grab onto to destroy the consensus for this bill are gone why are they gone because we went through a markup we listened to our colleagues on the other side and we made adjustments we had a religious exemption in that that many of the religious organization and strongly supported we listened to the debate we went back and we suggested that a straight  of thirty seconds that a straight exemption from file several be preferable for all of those involved so we've continued to to listen as that process has gone through and yes we have a bill here now that is far more acceptable to far more members of the congress the united states because it does what it says it's going to do and with that i'd like to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from california jealous californians recognize when i have met a man i'm speaker i rise to support and ab but i am sorry  not debating a more inclusive gender identity bill today which i would have supported and let me tell you why employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental american value the right of each individual to do his or her job without facing unfair discrimination transgender people are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the l g b t community i worked with a nationally known landscape architect is a california department of transportation where he worked as a contractor that she would be treated no differently than he had only a few problems with her transition for two reasons she had an internal advocate and the comprehensive protection of california state law others and i'm speaker are not so lucky which is why it is so important for us to provide inclusive federal protections i urge my colleagues to join me  america was regaled today by the president of france and he talked about america's values and he said that while the world loves america because its values now whether all the world loves america's actions all the time is another question but they know that one of our cardinal values was that we believe that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness no one in america believes that you can pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the opportunity to have employment in america we have discriminated historically against various groups of people some because of the color of their skin some because of their gender some because of their religion some because of their ethnic origin there have been all sorts of reasons throughout our history that we have discriminated against people madam speaker for more than two hundred years our great nation has fought for and advance the timeless values and ideals that are embodied in our constitution fairness justice and equality under law and today through this bipartisan legislation the employment nondiscrimination act we again take a momentous step in breaking down centuries of rank injustice on thinking prejudice and unjustified discrimination against gay and lesbian americans could be gay and lesbian could be african americans could be catholics could be baptists like me we've all been discriminated against from time to time it could be a jew it could be somebody of any other arbitrary distinction what this country really believes is that we should not discriminate against anybody so happens on this bill describes one somebody but it really refers to everybody and it really is saying in this just nation we believe in equal opportunity when the congress passed the civil rights act of one thousand nine hundred eighty four it prohibited employment discrimination based on race and gender discrimination that often was open and far too often regarded as acceptable frankly my colleagues as we sit here in this chamber hopefully all four hundred and thirty five of us believe that if we had lived in another time a half a century ago or perhaps a century ago we would have even then thought it was wrong to discriminate against somebody because of the color of their skin but we know that too many of our predecessors cers voted to allow and to further discrimination against people because of their color i presume that some of those look back after their service in there but in this body maybe ten or twenty years later and said i am historically sorry that i cast that discriminatory vote i hope that none of my colleagues find themselves in that place today or tomorrow and tomorrow or ten years from now we have expanded the scope of laws protection to prohibit employment discrimination based on religion color national origin and disability today through this historic civil rights legislation we would simply add sexual orientation as a protected class because even in twenty zero seven there is little doubt that gay and lesbian americans are too often the object of discrimination not because of their actions but because of who they are america believes that's wrong that's what president sarkozy was saying today misspeak madam speaker lot of speak clear this legislation is consistent with our values our ideals and america's long history of social progress and thus the question before stay is not only whether we will choose to do the right thing and pass this bill but whether we will choose to stand on the right side of history saying to some of our fellow citizens yes you may be different than we are but you are entitled by our constitution and by our god and by our values to equal treatment under law this legislation in fact is the logical extension of the law in some twenty states that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and i should note that the federal government we've taken that action all the people who work for us we bar discrimination against them based upon sexual orientation  the lead house sponsor of the landmark americans with disabilities act i harbor no illusions that this legislation will topple centuries of prejudice overnight or that we can legislate that prejudice out of existence that's probably not possible but what we can do what we ought to in fairness do this day is say that it is not lawful in the united states to have that prejudice prevent the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of opportunities offered by this great fair and just nation i urge my colleagues to stand with great pride to vote against discrimination in this great just land we call america telling who our way and one of the most defining characteristics of who we are is a meritocracy and that is the reason why we are as strong and as wealthy and as influential as we are all over the globe because people come from all parts of the globe to america because they knew that they would be judged here on the basis of the good their goodness as a member of society and their ability as a contributor to our economy that's all this legislation does the people that it is directed to have no more control over their sexual orientation than the color of their skin and all we are saying is that you will be judged of the employment nondiscrimination act as a former civil rights activist in south carolina who has been concentrated a number of times to have a kid in equal treatment for all i have come to find out the nation's our nation's civil rights or in fact human rights whether you're talking about allowing people of color to sit in eat at lunch commas or about ensuring that gay and lesbian americans can freely go to work and earn a living without fear of being discriminated against you're talking about basic human writes madam speaker before i came to this congress i spent eighteen years as south carolina human affairs commissioner in that position i came to find that bigotry and friends on the other side of the aisle to stop mr scare in this issue at a marriage issue this is an employment issue not a marriage issue and this bill does not enter in friends on the institution of marriage which i have cherished for more than forty six years by passing this bill members of the house go on record as i want to end discrimination in the workplace and not allow on its ugly face to resist  secret this bill is about discrimination but it's also about economic competition thinking about this bill today i was thinking of the one thousand nine hundred sixty four university washington husky football team went to the rose bowl they had a slashing tough brutal halfback need dave kopay boy a hero of mine helped him go to the rose bowl later on after he goes to the n f l we know he's a gay guy if the you w hadn't put that guy and there are several games they would not have one and if software companies don't hire gay software engineers they will not be economically competitive for the rest of the world in america let's get one thing real clear all good athletes play and all good software engineers engine air and all good workers work that's the american way let's pass this bill  both those key values in the west we believe in tolerance for our federal citizens tolerance in nazi germany they killed jews and gypsies but they also killed homosexuals thanks to us the nazis were  defeated by the tolerant democracies of the west our history is one of expanding tolerance first that all white men are equal then all men that all men and women these are the civil rights achievements of the twentieth century but now it's our turn to offer protection for those of a different orientation from the land of lincoln our country is a leader in advancing the toleration values of the west this bill is already the law in the land of lincoln but today we go forward to recognized what i think that this thing was the yesterday in the rules committee odd comment that democracies should be about tolerance democracies and religion should be about tolerance of today we get an opportunity to manifest all out tolerance all within the body politic of this country and it is an important day  just as nine hundred sixty four was an important day for passage of the civil rights act as one who has stood in the struggle of with brothers and sisters throughout this land to make this country live up to all of the creeds that all our values american values we cannot nor should we ever permit discrimination in the then and i'm sure he said we have two and a half minutes remaining at this time i would like to yield one and a half minutes to an icon in the protection of human and civil rights in our country a hero for our generation gentleman from georgia mr lewis temp from chair today we are considering truly far reaching modification of civil rights policy there are some here who want this proposal to go even further and we've heard that while many of us believe that it already goes too far the free exercise of religion is fundamental yet this bill couldn't french upon it the right of states to define in tech marriage as fundamental yet this bill could undermine it when an act in new federal mandates we should be seeking policies that employers can successfully implement yet this bill is vague and subjective and invites cost litigation we heard a discussion earlier about the concerns and employment law around a hostile work environment and what this newly protected class how this would fit into that it was asked could it employees he have a quote from the bible that soundly condemns homosexuality would that in itself create a hostile work environment i would say we do not know the answer to that question this is a boon for trial lawyers and court cases stacked up like cordwood because of these concerns madam chair  white house issued a statement of administration policy indicating that this bill would reach the president's desk his senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed the administration identified a number of concerns both on a constitutional level and with the underlyin policy unfortunately these concerns have not been given the full attention they deserve in this debate the number of amendments has been seriously limited we have seen the extraordinary step of putting in the rule a mandatory withdrawal of a proposed amendment this deserves a fuller examination republicans were prevented from offering key amendments that would have highlighted attempted to correct some of the more glaring problems which we see on the underlying bill as a result madam chair h r thirty six eighty five remains fatally flawed i oppose a bill in our judgment colleagues to join me in voting no on this overreaching proposal  yield back the balance of our time jennifer minnesota yells back it's time the gentleman from new jersey madam speaker at this time it is my honor to yield to a woman of faith and strength the leader of our house o speaker the generally from california the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute thank you very much madam chair i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his statement and mr andrewes of new jersey for his leadership on this important issue he knows as does the chairman of the full committee mr miller that discrimination has no place in america our country is a great country because we recognize that long ago that we have more work to do i thank them both for their strong leadership in fighting discrimination and thank them for the decades in the case of mr now their decades of service leadership on social justice i commend mr andrews for his commitment to protecting the rights of america's workers this is truly an historic day today the house of representatives will consider and hopefully pass for the first time the employment non discrimination act or enda as someone who has looked forward to this day for the twenty years that i have served in congress it is a joyous occasion ok jand it simply would not have been possible without the outstanding leadership and courage of chairman barney frank and of congresswoman tammy baldwin anyone who cares about a country without discrimination is deeply in debt to tammy baldwin and to barney frank where their leadership in this regard well and his victory will represent an historic represent a stark victory i share the disappointment of tammy baldwin and barney frank and others who support including protections for gender transgender individuals in and out while i had hoped that we could have had included gender identity i support final passage of and to because its passage will build momentum for further advances on gender identity rights and the rights of all americans america is a country that is great and wealthy but we cannot afford to squander the talents of any of our citizens nor should we we all benefit if everyone gets a chance to work hard and support their families yet today in thirty states an american can be denied a job or fired because they're gay lesbian bisexual or transgender this is wrong america working americans should be judged are they doing their job performance and not be subjected to prejudice madam chair of history teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy it is often marked by small and difficult steps we messed take this step today toward the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope i've heard the use of the word tolerance today and i respect the use of that word but if i may respectfully depart from me and say that in my community that is that blessed with a large diverse community our diversity is of all kinds religion gender identification religious faith and the rest and i always say that the beauty is in the mix and it's not that we're tolerant and are in my district in california and san francisco it's that we have so much respect for the role that each person place in our society so tolerance maybe respect definitely but let me also add that is the pride that we take in that diversity and  is the pride that i take in the gay lesbian bisexual and transgender community that brings me to the floor today to urge a yes vote on this important legislation thank you men and kill jalen yells back our time time for general debate has expired percentage of the rule the bill shall be considered read for amendment under the five minute rule no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in house report one ten dash for two to each amendment may be offered only in the order printed by in the report by member designated in the report shall be considered read shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided the controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question a member number three in the report may be withdrawn it is now in order to consider a man at number one printed in house report one ten dash for two two for what purposes the gentleman from california riots of this the clerical designate the corporation societies associations and in particular religious schools including those religious schools that are not affiliated with any particular church or denomination or a minute would make it clear that the end exemption matches the religious exemption found married refers to the federal definition of marriage between one man and one woman as an act in one thousand nine hundred six federal law referred to as the defense of marriage act with respect to the religious exemption this issue has been a cause of a lot of confusion in past weeks the religious exemption that was part of the and a bill that was passed out of the education labor committee and october eighteenth was it was exceptionally broad however several non denominational religious schools nevertheless raise concerns that they might not be covered under the a and exemption for example the president of wheaton college and they prevail in the ois send a letter to representative tim walberg in advance of the education labor committee's markup on enda mr walberg share that letter with the entire committee and our republican colleagues argue that we can call it which is clearly a religious school despite the fact that it is not controlled by any by any affiliation or with the specific church or covered by the  end it may not be covered by the end exemption that argument was incorrect we've made a lot along with other religious school an organization such as the council for christian colleges and universities asked that we ensure that the act categorically exempt religious organizations as in section seven zero two a title seven and we have done precisely what college and the council for christian colleges has asked us to do under this amendment if a religious organization including a religious school is exempt under either seven o two a or arguably the broader section of seven zero three e two then the organization or school is exempt from end period so if a school qualifies in either one of those exemptions under title seven it is categorically as they requested exempt from enda by directly referencing title seven we also ensure that many decades of case law on title seven religious exemption are important to enda this amendment provides clarity for religious schools that that have that have experience with the title seven exemption and it should satisfy all of the legitimate concerns about enda let me be clear the title seven exemption and therefore the end exemption applies to both non denominational religious schools like wheaton and church affiliated schools and one court explained even though the christian corporation organization is non denominational it nevertheless may subscribe to a particular religious view which other christians do not agree and conversely it may disagree with the religious views of other christians and a to go on the court this is precisely the situation which tiles seven exemptions were enacted in the exemptions allow religious institutions to employ only persons whose beliefs are consistent with the views  religious organization and that that is the purpose of this exemption that is the purpose of this of this amendment in addition to clarifying the scope of the end of religious exemption my m m and also specifically states that the reference to  marriage and refers to the definition of marriage is defined in federal law specifically these terms in and are given the meaning provided by federal law that is referred to in the defense of marriage act which defines marriage for federal purposes as a union of one man and one amendment to the employment nondiscrimination act of two thousand and seven this amendment makes two important players clarifications first are amendment asserts and clarifies that any religious organization that is currently covered by the civil rights act of one hundred sixty four would be exempt from the employment nondiscrimination act this will continue to protect religious organizations including corporations schools associations and societies from religious discrimination claims for the past forty plus years religious high schools colleges and other organizations throughout the nation have been allowed to hire individuals based on that institutions religious principles to date as we adopt employment protections based on sexual orientation these principles should be upheld continuing america's long standing separation of church and state this amendment will ensure that the federal government does not unconstitutionally infringe on religious organizations hiring practices religious schools and organizations throughout my district and throughout this nation will continue to freely practice their beliefs without being afraid of being charged with discrimination several major religious organizations support the inclusion of the religious exemption in enda including u s conference of catholic bishops union of orthodox jewish congregations of america and the general conference of the seventh day adventist church the miller stupak amendment also opposed the defen of marriage act it clarifies that any reference to marriage in enda refers to the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife in one thousand nine hundred six a bipartisan group of three hundred forty two members including myself voted in favor of the defense of marriage act marriage is between a man and woman i support including a clear definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman in this legislation no american should have to face this grim anation in the workplace regardless of their race gender or sexual orientation however religious organizations should be able to hire individuals who agree with their religious beliefs it is also important to make it explicitly clear  marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that no part of the employment nondiscrimination act could be misconstrued to undercut the defense of marriage act i urge my colleagues to join with me and the chairman in voting for this amendment with the inclusion of this amendment i encourage members to vote for final passage of the employment nondiscrimination act madam speaker i ask for a yes vote on the miller stupak amendment and i yield back the balance of my time and i think the gentleman for working with  time as i may consume with this amendment the majority tries to correct fundamental flaws related to hiring protections for faith based institutions and the press relation to marriage i will reluctantly support this relatively futile attempt but let me be clear on the issues of faith based protections and the installation of marriage institution a marriage this amendment fails to solve the problems as such even with adoption of this amendment the underlying bill should be defeated for months my colleagues and i have raised substantive legal and policy concerns related to this legislation after a series of legislative paul starts the bill brought to the floor it continues to pose a number of challenges the a member offered by chairman miller's an obvious attempt to address a few but certainly not all of the issues we've identified where expressed concern that the bill created a new anti discrimination framework outside the existing scope of title seven title seven of the civil rights act hundred sixty four among other things this allowed for a new set of provisions to dictate the hiring rights of religious organizations thereby stripping faith based institutions of their longstanding title seven protections i appreciate that the majority has recognized and agreed with our concerns about how this bill should what intrude on religious freedom in response to those concerns the amendment moves closer to title seven inexplicably however it still leaves out an important piece of current law chairman miller says his amendment fully restores protections to faith based institutions it does not we expressed concern that the bill could undermine the rights of states to define protect and preserve the institution of marriage the miller amendment deletes troublesome provisions related to employee benefits for same sex couples and references the federal defense of marriage act which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman unfortunately despite these steps or perhaps even because of them the bill taken as a whole continues to create potential conflict between state and federal marriage laws chairman miller says his amendment protects the rights of states to define and preserve traditional marriage it does not a presidential veto threat has been issued on constitutional and policy grounds this amendment fails to fully address those concerns i reluctantly support passage of this amendment to partially address a few of the problems we've identified throughout this bill's troubled legislative path but i remind my colleagues that this amendment is not enough the bill remains a litigation trap that undermines marriage and provides insufficient protections to faith based organizations even after supporting this amendment i urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and i reserve the balance  house of representatives is debating h r thirty six eighty five the employment nondiscrimination act today as well meaning is this title of the bill sailed i want the constituents of ma tenth congressional dish to georgia and all americans to know why this legislation is bad for georgia and bad for america just like the ill conceived hate crimes legislation that this democratic majority passed this bill will increase discrimination yes increase and not decrease it i believe in the cost to sion of the united states is our founding fathers intended the first amendment or our constitution expressly protection religious freedom so while i am opposed to discrimination i also am opposed to creating special rights and privileges for certain classes and that is exactly what this bill does this bill would elevate one's person's desire for a particular job of another person's right to practice and honor their religious beliefs if h r thirty six eighty five is signed into law and i pray that it will not be it would deny the civil rights of employers and it would abridge the freedom of association in shrine in the first amendment into will and force employers including christians muslims jews and peoples of other faiths to hire individuals that are diametrically opposed to their fundamental fundamental belief system if they stand up for their religious beliefs and refuse to hire those opposed to their faith they will be sued in fact one thing the bill will accomplish is to dramatically increase lawsuits against employers further while the democratic majority will argue that religious  notes definition contained in this bill for religious organizations and religious educational institutions is so bad as to make this exemption essentially meaningless the bill would grant special employment privileges and protected minority status orientation but on his perception of their orientation callous individual in organizations including christian jewish schools christian bookstores and even religious daycare providers well before see the hard homosexual or transgender to thank chairman miller as as a former republican south director on the children family committee when he was chairman of that and working with the committee i found as he said earlier that he listened to the extra member committee and made some adjustments that in fact occasionally he's right it's occasional but occasionally he's right this addressed some of our concerns it did not address all of our concerns that as you know when you're dealing with religious law or any law it isn't at the heart of the matter it's at the fringes in in communion is can minors take real up a hole in wine can native american smoke pio that i hear we're not dealing with in this and then it helps clarify that we're not dealing with religious colleges we're not dealing with the church proper but law in the united states as we deal with religious discrimination ability to deal whether sexual discrimination trumps religious discrimination which is mentally what this bill is about that people help hold  deeply held religious beliefs which is part of orthodox jewish teaching fundamentalist muslim teaching and in the bible unlike civil rights were civil rights were led by william wilberforce and england by the abolition america because the bible was not explicit but here in fact the bible is explicit the qur'an is explicit the torah is explicit and people have deep religious held beliefs so eighty five percent of the christian bookstores in america would not be covered by this protection that certain types of church camps would not be depending on how it's handle group homes that are often independent and do not have an overt religious message they grew out of the faith message of of of  a church but do not necessarily now have an overtly religious mission they're part of the outgrowth of of their religion would be covered they wouldn't be able to have a husband wife be the house parents under this bill that religious law is a lot more complex than it was presented today one of the other challenges here is when we're trying to talk about how do we debate in public life over people of faith and which party the going to be and how we're going to reach out to this american people have heard in this debate today people who seriously are uncomfortable with this debate we don't like to talk about this type of thing i've tried to be create everybody in my life regardless of how they've been in this congress or friends that back home or people i've worked with with respect and dignity and do not practice personal discrimination but i have heard my religion and my religious belief called prejudiced bigoted hate filled that the predominant religions in america have been had their basic beliefs those who believe in a literal bible have seen their faith smeared today on this house floor and i am very disappointed in much of the tone i understand the passion understand why people who have a homosexual lifestyle feel they've been discriminated against but this is a classic question in our country if in fact nobody could get a job we'd be facing a different challenge today i openly admit that but the challenge here is to people who have deeply held religious convictions based in their fundamental test text of their faith have the right to practice their faith to or they going to be trumped this amendment is a step but it's only a thank the chairman for yielding i rise in support of this well thought out amendment from chairman miller mr stupak i think it quite fairly addresses some of the concerns people have raised first with respect to religion on october fourth two thousand and seven the president of spring arbor university wrote to our colleague mr walberg from michigan and mr president lifton worried about the scope of the religious exemption in the underlying bill and here's what he said i urge you to remove the problematic religious definition language currently in india and ensure that the act categorically exempts religious organizations as in section seven zero two a of title seven civil rights  here's what the amendment in front of us says madam chair this actual not apply to a corporation association educational institution or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title seven of the civil rights act sixty four pursuant to section seven zero two a precisely what was asked for a second heard concerns that there is preferential treatment or special rights for persons protected under this bill the gentleman and others should read page eight of the underlying bill sub paragraph f which is captioned no preferential treatment or quotas let me read from it madam chair nothing in this act shall be construed or interpreted to require or permit any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation of such individual helpful read the bill finally we've heard suggestions that somehow the institution of marriage is undermined it's very important to read the second part of mr miller and mr stu packs amendment subsection c and i will read it as use in this act the term married or marry refer to marriage as such term is defined in section seven of title one which is the defense of marriage act which explicitly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman these were concerns that were raised they are met i respect and appreciate the fact that the ranking member of the full committee will vote yes on this amendment so why and soul an overwhelming majority so we can proceed to passage of this bill is an emotional issue it's a serious issue and i think it has it's hard for some of us i know on this to control our our passions and it's it's disturbing that some are offended have been offended during the debate today and i and i feel badly about that i have my concerns are more the flaws that i see in the bill i'm i'm concerned that we're all trying to end discrimination i don't think you do that by passing laws i think we have to engage people in there with their hearts and their minds and try to work at that at that approach while this amendment does not correct or even address all of the challenges created by the underlying legislation i recognize the incremental steps it takes i appreciate the chairman for for making this effort of trying to resolve these issues it does that because what this clause does in the name of protecting homosexuals actually takes out any ability of any business any youth home any group any organization to have any kind of marriage criteria this doesn't go to the defense of marriage question directly although it builds in inherent contradictions because the last amendment in attempting to address that merely bred confusion and contradiction inside the bill which will have to be resolved by courts defense of marriage makes it so that for example somebody married in vermont or hope hawaii doesn't have to have their marital san addressed  recognized in indiana but it doesn't address the fundamental question of can marriage be a criteria in fact this bill even goes beyond that it doesn't allow you to have any kind of criteria on any type of sexual behavior it isn't just about homo sexual behavior isn't clear that any organization can have any guidelines on adultery on polygamy or anything else because by eliminating marriage by eliminating any kind of sexual standards it's unclear what standards you can have that relate to sex at all so if you have any kind of of ministry goal and are a profoundly christian organization that falls under the very narrow definition of the last amendment you're in deep trouble here so you can't find things like we've seen just recently on on the website that says things like house parents cars parents concert parents family teaching couples any organization that wants to try to do this cannot do so this obviously comes in for christian child care centers this is going to come in which are not overtly christian mission it's going to come in to exercise centers that may be operated by religious organizations it comes into also christian bookstores obviously into different conflict centers that may be both secular and christian conforte will not be covered by their ability to say that in order to do fam constantly you have to be married and you have to subscribe to certain kind of sexual standards they won't they'll be prohibited because they are a covered by title seven under a a narrow definition of title seven my m m it would eliminate all this it doesn't it doesn't fix the bill doesn't i admit it doesn't change my opinion on the underlying bill but it helped solve a deeper problem that was created and i understand why it was created because those who want to protect homosexuals didn't want to have a backdoor way to in effect discriminate against them but by doing this they've set up another class of discrimination once again pitting sexual discrimination up against the right to practice religious liberty reserve the balance of my time to minister to time gentleman from california are you claiming the time chairman members of the of the committee i first want to correct some of these mistaken assumptions that i think mr stoddard just made in his remarks he claims that the language of section eight three eighty eight student eighty three would undermine the definition of marriage that some states have chosen to adopt this is untrue even after into becomes law regardless of whether section eighty three remains in the bill or is taken out the states for purposes of state law decide marriage issues for themselves nothing in ended would change that nothing in the end would al r the federal laws referred to in the defense of marriage act second it's just not a makes the claim that section eighty three would have prevented an employer from firing an employee who has an extramarital sex frankly i don't see anything in the text of a three that  discusses extramarital sex in fact i don't see anything anywhere in the text adventure that discusses extramarital sex and i can understand how mr souders come to this conclusion about extramarital sex but the entire issue is just a diversion from what and actually does and is very simple and it will prevent employers from firing a perfectly qualified gay lesbian or bisexual employee just because that employee's sexual orientation mr speaker  that already outlaws employers from discriminating based upon sexual orientation through any any pretext policy including the pretext of marital status moreover many states including mr souders home state in indiana have already created state laws allow plaintiffs to sue their employees their employer based upon marital status discrimination and those state laws or further protect against protection of discrimination against gay and lesbian americans finally i want to explain in more detail i will why i will vote mr frank another original in the sponsors and i wrote this lead this bill we were worried that a clever discriminatory employer might realize you cannot fire again employees specifically because of his or her sexual orientation so when the discriminatory employer might decide to create a a reason for firing that person in this case the fact that the employee is not married or does not have the right to get married that's why we drafted section eighty three how however the thing that convinced me to vote from the souter and them is the fact in section four even which my committee marked up in favor reported makes the souter men and practically a relevant section four of and is a portion of the bill that will very clearly prohibits a discrimination based upon sexual orientation so if an employer is actually discriminating based upon sexual policy whatsoever about whether its accounts should be single or married that's not that's not hard to picture a picture because not many accounting firms anywhere in america has a policy that requires an accountant to be married many being a good account is that is the reason that they hired people then imagine that one of the accounts in a branch office lets his coworkers know that he is gay now let's say that the branch office has a home of the homophobic manager who at the very next day sends out a memo announcing a new policy and branch of that all accounts will have to be married to keep the job the managers figured out this new policy will allow them to fire fire gay or lesbian accountants and what happens only to account who is unmarried also imagine that after standing out the member of the homophobic branch matter since an e mail to some  colleagues explain now that we have a new marriage policy we can fire that disgusting homosexual account and that gay account will be able to file a lawsuit pursued the ndaa and that's the point of this legislation they will be able to put evidence before a federal jury and to try and convince them it was really fired because of sexual orientation not because of marriage policy and that is that is why this the legislation exists my point point of the scenario is that i've just described you as it already covered by section four  is far too weak to reach my own goals and i realize that i was hoping it could be adapted adopted because i think it improves the bill b i think that the chairman correctly stated the challenge here and the  inherent inconsistency in the bill by merely removing this clause didn't allow in effect a bill that was intended to protect gay people into other areas  in marriage criteria in other sexual things because that could have been far more reaching because many organizations have in one man one woman marriage clauses also fidelity clauses with the marriage clause which is why i referred to that in th is mix a lever i understand in the purposes of the bill without the protection that you now see in fact somebody could try to get around the intent of the bill that and i understand what you're trying to address so in conclusion well my amendment i think doesn't fix or still hasn't here and contradictions still is going to lead to lawsuits still lead to all sorts of questions nevertheless it will improve the bill appreciate the chairman's willingness to support this amendment we have these laws in one thousand states nothing like that fantasy has ever come forward there was a saying that you're pretty broke don't fix it ibra doesn't exist you can't fix it they have made this up we have had the experience for have a nondiscriminatory workplace and that means whoever you are whatever faith whatever sexual orientation you deserve a nondiscriminatory workplace rises support this legislation i ask my statement to be put into the record and to ensure that my number three printed in the house report one ten dash for two t minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin madam chair i yield myself three and one half minute gentleman is recognized for three and a half minutes thank you madam chair in the united states the law forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of a person's race color sex religion or national origin it forbids discrimination based on age or disability perceived or though these protections were not easy to achieve but we are better for them today and seeks to expand the law to prohibit job discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation and my amendment would also include gender identity we have worked steadily over the years to rid our nation of irrational hate and fear against gay and transgender americans that too often results in violent hate crimes ostracism bullying and discrimination in employment housing public accommodations or education today at least two hundred eighty two cities and towns and one hundred states across the country have protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in both public or private and private sector jobs and more than ninety three local jurisdictions in eleven states have laws that include protections based on gender identity one hundred ninety five american businesses employing more than eight point three million american workers have exemplary policies that protect gay lesbian bisexual and transgender employees consumers and investors fifty eight percent of these firms provide employment protections on the basis of gender identity it is time for congress to catch up to our communities and american businesses today we can strengthen our laws against discrimination in the workplace while gay and lesbian americans are now out and accepted in record numbers not everyone understands the issue of gender identity feel i understand how a person's body might not match their internal sense of gender this is not a new phenomenon it is not a fad and it is certainly not a reason to lose one's job some have asked why it is essential to in good protections for transgender americans in this legislation the answer is that this community shares a common history with the rest of the lesbian gay and bisexual community a history of suffering discrimination and too often violence just for being who they are the importance of nondiscrimination laws cannot be overstated substantively they provide legal remedies and a chance to see justice symbolically they say that in america we judge our fellow citizens by their integrity their character their talents and not their sexual orientation or gender identity race or religion age or disability irrational hate and fear have no place in our society if we truly believe in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we truly want to protect the most vulnerable in our society if we continue to profess that all men are created equal that we must work towards achieving the american dream for all and not just for some madam chair i reserve the balance of my time but generally there is about  yes the gentleman to thank you i don't myself three minutes germans recognize for three minutes this this amendment both would protect transgender in the sense of people who've had sex change opposite operations and and transvestites people who dress up as the opposite sex who are not covered apparently under the underlying bill that this bill was to come in front of our committee sensibly partly because  was a major convention a disruption occurred on the other party side over this particular amendment and the bill was withdrawn then continued debate occurred and in committee a number of the democrat members voted against the bill because  amendment was included and presumably that was going to be so the m m it could be offered on the floor and people would have a right to to vote on this i don't really need a right to vote on i think most people probably know where i stand on the issue but i think that to not have a vote on an amendment like this is a political ploy it's a political ploy in the sense of what appears to be happening here is that the majority doesn't want to have the embarrassment of their side dividing on an issue or maybe they're afraid that our people would actually vote for this amendment and put it over the top to kill the bill but i would suggest on a vote like this that would be extremely  unlikely i think it's more that they want to shield their members from having a difficult vote therefore they can go out and tell the transgender community oh we tried but in fact in a very peculiar rule it appears that the intention is to keep us from calling for a vote and having members actually show where they stand on this issue not where they give speeches on this issue but where they actually stand on this issue cleared of the word proceed an amendment that i had been denied for this bill would have had a huge relevance also indeed to this particular category the challenge before us as we look at this and from a conservative perspective we've heard repeatedly today that all were from audible speakers from the opening debate on rules through the  debate through here that were eventually going to move this direction and yet we're told that we as conservatives are paranoid that all religious organizations are going to be protected this and that are going to be protected we've we've seen the democrats move an add a title seven protection that they opposed over in based for years on this house war we saw them add a defense of marriage clause which they had opposed for years now that we've seen them move even to the point of including contrary to what the majority leader said that the government is applying this know the militaries exempt from having this bill applied to them in consistency clearly they're willing to tolerate major changes in the majorities position in order to move the bill which adds people to on the other side ask what's the point of moving the bill if they're this many compromises all they've been saying all day long that they're going to expand this bill once it becomes law it's going to go to court to resolve the different things hence some of us believe that many of the things that were added today i feel myself one additional minute challenge and that's one that many of the things that were added today on the the the marriage clause on the religious exemption clause the blocking of this amendment be offered or to make a bill more palatable as as my friend the chairman of financial services said you can't get everything in that first thing it's to make it more palatable to in effect move it in place and this isn't the end of the day here this is the start of a move that many of us who just simply don't approve of lifestyle there are many different things i don't approve of but this is a deeply held position of faith by millions of americans and this isn't an attempt a start of what's likely to be an increasing effort to have sexual liberties trump religious liberties i reserved about  thank you madam chair i feel myself the balance of my time the woman is recognized for one and a half minutes my own that meant reflects my belief that we should be acting on an inclusive and covering both sexual orientation and gender identity now those of us in politics know that it's much easier to protect a provision in a bill from removal on the floor than it is to add a provision to a bill once it has been reported out of miti and this amendment is no exception to that rule while i believe that a roll call vote on this amendment would demonstrate strong support for an inclusive and i believe that it will fall short of adoption people have asked why i pressed for and insisted upon bringing an amendment to the floor and maintaining the option to withdraw it without a vote the reason is simple i believe that those who will be left behind by this bill deserve to hear on this house floor that you are not forgotten and our job will not be finished until you to share fully in the american dream so at the moment at which the closing arguments are made i will withdraw this amendment with a commitment to my colleagues and all americans committed to equality of opportunity and ending discrimination that i will do everything within my power to make this measure whole them and yell back resign i i if i withdraw all right now i will preclude the gentleman from making his closing i do not want to preclude him from doing that so i will just wait to withdraw until he the right to close how did she get recognised over my motion to classics relating proceedings on their resume on those amendments which further proceedings were postponed in the following order remember number one by mr george miller of california member number two by mr souder of indiana the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series than finished business as the requests were recorded vote on amendment number one printed in house report one ten dash for two two by the gentleman from california mr george miller on which further proceedings were postponed on which the