Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this rule, as it stands, discriminates against amendments made in order. My colleagues who entered into the debate today said they are against discrimination; therefore, I urge them to vote ``no'' on the previous question and for equality. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I find that we are debating a rule that is rather ironic because the underlying bill that this rule would make in order is a bill about discrimination and ending discrimination, and yet the very rule, the very rule that we are debating, which makes three amendments in order, is a discriminatory rule because it does not treat all three amendments equal. As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will show their support for having a vote on amendment No. 3, which would expand the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity. This is defined in the amendment as the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth. As I said, those voting ``no'' on the previous question will be able to vote on this question. Those Members who vote ``yes'' on the previous question will be showing their support for denying Americans, through their representatives, a voice on this issue. Again, if the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule by striking that provision in the language that denies having to seek unanimous consent to offer to withdraw the vote. If the previous question is defeated, the House will still be able to consider the employment nondiscrimination bill today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from Florida if she has any more speakers on her side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman would do that. I hope he would join me. I am just worried that this is so unprecedented for this to happen. That is the point I made from the outset, and that is the point I make right now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would probably respond to your direct question that for the same reason for the 20 years prior to that your party didn't bring it up either. But what I want to say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, the gentleman said that the purpose of the House is not to debate every issue. I would tend to agree with that. But I think that the gentleman would have to agree with me that when there are propositions that are made in order, whether it is a bill or whether it is an amendment, that they ought to be debated and disposed of by the House and not be covered up, if you will.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I gave the gentleman time to hopefully respond to what I am going to suggest, and that is if he would vote ``no'' on the previous question, that would be to amend the rule to allow a vote under normal rules, normal order. So if you would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will have an opportunity to vote on that amendment. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the newest Member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman from Ohio 30 seconds, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to a classmate of mine, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentlelady then will join with me in defeating the previous question so, in fact, we can have a vote on that amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. You were speaking, if I heard you correctly, on the Baldwin amendment. Now, the way the rule is structured, there is potential for not a vote on that amendment. I'm going to offer a motion on the previous question to allow that to be voted. Now, if I understood what the gentlelady was saying in her remarks, she would like the opportunity to debate that and presumably vote on that. So I would hope that the gentlelady would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand. Well, if that's the case, then, Mr. Speaker, I accept the ruling, and I wish I had a more full description of why there is a problem not at least allowing potentially a vote on amendment No. 3. Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice but to ask my colleagues, then, later on today to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule by striking the language that I described that allows the proponent of amendment No. 3 to withdraw their amendment before a vote. So, just let me be clear. When I offered this motion, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will, therefore, be allowed to show their support or opposition on amendment No. 3, which would expand the bill's protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity. This is defined in the amendment as ``gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to an individual's designated sex at birth.'' Now, Members who choose to say ``yes,'' then, on the previous question would, therefore, be showing their support for denying Members of this House an opportunity to vote on that issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge, and I will talk about this later, but I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when I offer that motion on the previous question. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Is my amendment now before the body?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No, the question I have, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and adopted.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, did I hear objection?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for giving me that option. I can't remember how many times I have been in the Rules Committee talking about and asking Members who come forward with potential amendments what their choice would be, would they like to have an open rule or would they like to have a closed rule. And every time I hear, at least from the members of the Rules Committee, that the Rules Committee will decide. Now, it sounds in this particular case that one Member decided that she didn't want a vote on it, so we deny everybody in the House an opportunity. The gentlewoman said that she would like to be able to vote on this. I will give her the opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have served on this Rules Committee for a decade, and I cannot recall one instance when Republicans were in control that a rule allowed a Member to bypass House Rules and withdraw an amendment. I believe it is wrong for a substantive legislative issue to be raised on the floor only to deny Americans, through their representatives, a voice on that amendment. Let's be clear about what is happening here. And that is that the rules of the House are being altered to block the House from voting on this amendment. It is clear and simple. We were elected to represent our constituents by casting a vote and votes, and today Democrat leaders are denying us a vote. I am extremely concerned with this unprecedented rule and I have an amendment, and I hope the gentlewoman will support me. My amendment would, in section 1 of the resolution, strike the sentence which begins, ``Amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended to reflect the change as offered in my amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentlewoman yield to me so that I can offer the amendment?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition to Federal law, 11 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, while another eight States bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would extend Federal employment discrimination protections to employees on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that skills and job performance are essential for determining whether employees are hired, promoted, or dismissed. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. As a former small business owner, I know that what brings success to one company does not necessarily bring success to another. As I mentioned, a number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right as States. Many small businesses and large corporations have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill as written, though, raises a number of concerns, including that it would expand Federal law into a realm where perception, Mr. Speaker, would be a measure under discrimination law. On Monday, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and Members testifying before the committee pointed out that debate on the bill, at least in committee, had been productive and a respectful one. Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed that moments later, the Democrat- controlled Rules Committee chose to report out a rule that denies the House and the American people the opportunity for a full and fair debate by prohibiting 99 percent of the Members of the U.S. House the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments. For the last 2 weeks, Democrat leaders have had the opportunity to amend, alter, and change this bill. This editing and rewriting has been done behind closed doors and is contained within the Miller-Stupak amendment. Democrat leaders have acted to deny a public debate and to deny Republicans the opportunity to offer an amendment similar in scope to the Miller-Stupak amendment. This is not an open and honest way to run the House, and it is not what Democrat leaders promised the American people only a year ago. This rule only makes three amendments in order, Mr. Speaker, but buried in this rule there is a special provision, a special provision, that allows amendment No. 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules to be withdrawn by its proponent before the question of adoption. Mr. Speaker, what does this mean? It means that the Rules Committee decided to make three amendments in order but denies the House a vote on one of those amendments. I just have to wonder why the Democrat Rules Committee is denying a vote on this amendment. My friend from Florida was up there, and I would yield to the gentlewoman from Florida if she can tell me why this provision is in the bill to deny the House a vote on amendment No. 3. I would yield to my friend if she would explain this for me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.