Drug Quality and Security Act—Motion to Proceedby Senator Dianne Feinstein
Posted on 2013-11-06
FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor to give my views on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--better known as ENDA-- because this is essentially a bill with a long history. It means a great deal to me personally because of the work I did in the city and county of San Francisco a long time ago.
Actually, nearly 40 years ago, in 1978, I was in my third term as president of the board of supervisors when an ordinance to prohibit discrimination in both housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation was actually passed by the board. I think it was a vote of 10 to 1. I introduced the legislation in my first few years as president of the board, and it was the first such legislation introduced in a major city anywhere in the United States. It was difficult to pass. There was a long debate. I look back on the press and it was a 2-hour debate, but it did pass back in 1978.
It is true that I at the time had some concerns. So I have watched the legislation implemented over the last four decades. It has protected people's jobs and livelihoods from unfair treatment. It has been good for people and for business. I had some concerns. Would there be a lot of objections? Actually, in the time I was a supervisor and in the 9 years I was mayor, there were no objections. All of a sudden the city really came to see what equality meant. I knew then, and I know now, this legislation is the right thing to do, and it is not going to result in inappropriate behavior in the workplace or any of the other hobgoblins that the legislation's opponents raise.
In 1996, ENDA came to this floor. An up-or-down vote on this bill was negotiated the same day the Defense of Marriage Act--or what we call DOMA--would have such a vote. These votes happened on September 10, 1996. The defense of marriage bill passed. I was one of 14 Senators to oppose it, 85 of my colleagues supported it, and President Clinton signed it into law. As we all know now, what it essentially did was say that any gay couple that was legally married could not access more than 1,100 Federal rights that were accorded to married couples. Now some 14 States have legalized gay marriage, and just recently it looks like Illinois is on its way to doing the same.
ENDA failed by a single vote back then. That was a vote of 49 to 50. Today things are very different, but there is still a long way to go. In an historic decision in June, the Supreme Court struck down the core piece of the Defense of Marriage Act. But DOMA is not yet fully repealed, and repealing it remains necessary. So, in my view, the Defense of Marriage Act must and will be one day repealed once and for all. Although such legislation as ENDA has been adopted in numerous States, there is still no Federal end to discrimination. That means that most gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals are without critical protections against employment discrimination. In fact, most people, over 56 percent of the population, live in the 29 States that have not enacted employment protections for gays and lesbians. Over 66 percent of people live in the 34 States that have not enacted such protections for transgender individuals.
There is no question, discrimination in the workplace against these groups remains a big problem. Let me give just a few examples. There is the case of Mia Macy, a case in which the Justice Department found that Ms. Macy's transgender status played an impermissible role in the hiring process. She had, for 12 years, been a police detective in Phoenix, AZ. She was a veteran. She applied for an open position in an ATF ballistics lab to do ballistics imagery work that she was certified to do. She was told she could have the position, subject to a background check.
[[Page S7848]] Then Macy revealed her transgender status to the government contractor staffing these positions. Her background check was ordered stopped by ATF soon thereafter. She received an email stating the position was no longer available because of funding cuts, even though there was no evidence that was the case.
It turns out that the number of positions available had hastily been cut from two to one, and the person hired for that one position lacked much of the experience Macy had.
Macy was, according to DOJ's decision, ``very likely better qualified'' than the individual actually hired for that position. So this is wrong. Ballistics matching can be the difference between a shooter in jail and a shooter, who might kill again, walking the streets of our neighborhoods. The person who was actually hired should be the person who can do the best job, period, regardless of whether the person is gay, straight, or transgender.
Another case involves a police officer from the city of St. Cloud, MN. According to a court opinion, the officer was an ``excellent'' officer. He was consistently awarded marks as ``excellent'' or ``competent'' on his performance reports. The officer got ``letters of recognition and commendation for his accomplishments, including his work on the Community Crime Impact Team, his work against drunk driving, his performance in apprehending a sexual assault suspect, and for his work in recovering a stolen vehicle.'' Then he came out as gay. After that, according to the officer, he almost immediately ``was subject to increased scrutiny, increased disciplinary measures, excessively thorough documentation and surreptitiously recorded interventions'' as well as ``multiple internal investigations'' and removal from assignments.
The Federal court found that ``the almost immediate shift'' in the treatment of this officer ``supports an inference of unlawful discrimination'' under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which applies to State and local agencies. But if a private employer had discriminated like this, there likely would have been no Federal protection.
In a case out of Oregon, an individual who ran a production line for battery separators was subjected to harassment on the job. He was called ``Tinker-bell'' and ``a worthless queer.'' He was described using other phrases that I simply will not say on the Senate floor because they are graphic and beyond the pale. I think they would shock many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This harassment occurred on a daily basis, sometimes in the presence of a supervisor. Then, 2 days after reporting the harassment to human resources, the individual was fired. In this case, the Federal court found the evidence credible enough to warrant a trial under Oregon law.
Sometimes discrimination is not as clear as it is in these cases. I am going to quote from a 93-year-old constituent of mine who called my office urging full support for this bill. This is what he said: I don't usually take the time to call my Senator but this is important to me. I've lived in San Francisco almost my whole life, and at 93 years old I have seen a lot. Even in a liberal State like California, as a gay man I never felt equal to my colleagues.
This is a quote.
I used to work at a bank, and I kept working until I was 79, to earn my retirement. I was afraid to bring my husband to company parties, and I never wanted to seem too flamboyant to my supervisors. It seems so ridiculous when I think back on it, but people don't understand that this kind of discrimination is subtle.
It broke my heart when I watched the Senate fall one vote shy of passing ENDA back in the nineties. I hope the Senator remembers what it used to be like, and fights to pass ENDA today.
I do remember, and I do know that this bill will help stop discrimination in the workplace. The bill is simple. It says a person cannot be denied employment because of who that person is: Gay, straight or transgender. The bill provides no special privilege--no special privilege. It creates no quota. It creates no exemption from the codes of conduct or anything else. It does not allow inappropriate conduct in the workplace. In fact, the bill is narrower than title VII protections in certain respects. In my view, the bill does provide critical employment protections, and it is long past the time that it be signed into law.
Three years ago we recognized that a person's merit, not sexual orientation, is what matters for service in the military. The point is no different in this bill. If a person wants to be a ballistics expert, a police officer, a firefighter, a bank teller, a lawyer, a factory worker or anything else, the question should simply be, can the person do the job.
People have families, they have spouses, and they have children. They need to put food on the table. They have college expenses for their children, student loans to pay, and unforeseen medical expenses. They may have elderly parents that they care for and who need their assistance. All of this requires a job.
Should a person be denied that basic aspect of life, should a person's spouse or children or parents be hurt, simply because that person is gay or straight or transgender? For me the answer is simple; it is no.
That person should not engage in any conduct that would be unseemly for one of a heterosexual couple. The conduct rules are also important. If this legislation is enacted, which I hope very much will happen, that will be the law of the land, and it will be long overdue.
I wanted to come to the floor and indicate some of the past and go back to 35 years ago when the first employment bill that would prohibit discrimination of this type was enacted. I am very proud to have introduced it, and to have been a vote for it on the board of supervisors in San Francisco.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.