★ 69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–422 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 3685) 

TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE 

BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION 

NOVEMBER 5, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. CASTOR, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 793] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 793, by a record vote of 9–3, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, under a structured rule. 

The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of 

order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of 

rule XXI. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as 

read. All points of order against provisions of the bill are waived. 

This waiver does not affect the point of order available under 

clause 9 of rule XXI (regarding earmark disclosure). 

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in this 

report. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the 

order printed in this report, may be offered only by a Member designated in this report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in this report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 

the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 

points of order against the amendments except for clauses 9 and 

10 of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally the rule provides that, 

notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated 

by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration 

of the bill (except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI) and waives all 

points of order against the provisions of the bill, the Committee is 

not aware of any points of order. The waivers of all points of order 

are prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 378 

Date: November 5, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 3685. 

Motion by: Mr. Dreier. 

Summary of motion: To grant an open rule. 

Results: Defeated 3–9. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Nay; Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Cardoza—Nay; Welch—Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; 

Sutton—Nay; Dreier—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Hastings (WA)—Yea; 

Slaughter—Nay. 

Rules Committee record vote No. 379 

Date: November 5, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 3685. 

Motion by: Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide appropriate 

waivers for an amendment by Rep. Souder (IN), #4, which would 

strike ‘‘perceived’’ from each place it occurs in the bill. 

Results: Defeated 3–9. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Nay; Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Cardoza—Nay; Welch—Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; 

Sutton—Nay; Dreier—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Hastings (WA)—Yea; 

Slaughter—Nay. 

Rules Committee record vote No. 380 

Date: November 5, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 3685. 

Motion by: Mr. Hastings (WA). 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide appropriate 

waivers for an amendment by Rep. Souder (IN), #6, which would 

prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee because the employee refused to consent to an employer’s anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy, or refused to participate in 

a diversity training program, because of their religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. 

Results: Defeated 3–9. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Nay; Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Cardoza—Nay; Welch—Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; 

Sutton—Nay; Dreier—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Hastings (WA)—Yea; 

Slaughter—Nay. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

Rules Committee record vote No. 381 

Date: November 5, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 3685. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

Summary of motion: To report the rule. 

Results: Adopted 9–3. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)—Yea; Matsui—Yea; Cardoza—Yea; Welch—Yea; Castor—Yea; Arcuri—Yea; 

Sutton—Yea; Dreier—Nay; Diaz-Balart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—

Nay; Slaughter—Yea. 

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

1. Miller, George (CA)/Stupak (MI): The amendment (1) provides 

explicitly that any religious corporation, school, association or society that is exempt under either Section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of Title 

VII’s religious exemptions is exempt under ENDA. It clarifies that 

the scope of Title VII’s exemption is exactly the scope of ENDA’s 

exemption (if a school is exempt from Title VII’s religious discrimination prohibitions, it will also be exempt from ENDA); and (2) it 

clarifies that ENDA does not alter the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA) in any way. It strikes language referencing ‘‘a same-sex 

couple who are not married’’ in the Employee Benefits section of 

ENDA. It also inserts language clarifying that the term ‘‘married’’

has the meaning given such term in DOMA, directly incorporating 

DOMA’s definition of marriage. (20 minutes) 

2. Souder (IN): The amendment would strike paragraph (3) of 

section 8(a), which prohibits employers from conditioning employment on a person being married or being eligible to be married. (10 

minutes) 

3. Baldwin (WI): The amendment would expand ENDA’s protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity, defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or 

other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. The amendment includes language concerning shared facilities, dress, and 

grooming standards, as well as a paragraph stating that the construction of additional facilities are not required. (10 minutes) 

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER UNDER THE RULE

1. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE

MILLER OF CALIFORNIA, OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 20 

MINUTES

Strike paragraph (8) of section 3(a) (and redesignate paragraphs 

(9) and (10) of such section as paragraphs (8) and (9), respectively). 

Strike section 6 and insert the following: 

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational 

institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant 

to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–1(a); 

2000e–2(e)(2)). 

In section 8(b), strike ‘‘, including a same-sex couple who are not 

married,’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 

At the end of section 8, insert the following: 

(c) DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.—As used in this Act, the term 

‘‘married’’ or ‘‘marry’’ refer to marriage as such term is defined in 

section 7 of title I, United States Code (referred to as the Defense 

of Marriage Act). 

2. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SOUDER OF

INDIANA, OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

Strike paragraph (3) of section 8(a). 

3. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE BALDWIN

OF WISCONSIN, OR HER DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

Throughout the Act, insert ‘‘or gender identity’’ after ‘‘sexual orientation’’ each place it appears. 

In section 3(a), after paragraph (5) insert the following (and redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly): 

(6) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘‘gender identity’’ means 

the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or 

other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or 

without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. 

In section 8(a), insert after paragraph (2) the following (and redesignate succeeding paragraph accordingly): 

(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES.—Nothing in this Act shall 

be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice 

based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial 

of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being 

seen unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established 

with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later. 

(4) ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NOT REQUIRED.—Nothing in this 

Act shall be construed to require the construction of new or additional facilities. 

(5) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS.—Nothing in this Act 

shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during 

the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or 

grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits 

any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to 

the time of employment, and any employee who has notified 

the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender 

to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT