George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4154) to increase the insurance limitations on Federal insurance for bonds issued by the designated bonding authority for Historically Black Colleges and Universities capital financing.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Cummings, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Scott and Mr. Cooper who have worked diligently to get this legislation to the floor. And I want to thank Mr. Keller and Mr. McKeon on the Republican side, and our House leadership and the Republican leadership for facilitating this. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Program was established by Congress in 1992 to help these schools fund capital projects to construct, rehabilitate, or renovate existing and new campus facilities. Under current law, the HBCU Capital Financing Program has a legislative cap or limit to the total amount of bonds that the Secretary of Education may guarantee to provide loans to these schools to undertake their capital projects. In dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary exceeded, with congressional approval, the original cap that Congress imposed on the amount of bonds the Secretary could guarantee. Given the cap on such bonds was reached during the tragic events caused by Hurricane Katrina, the program is now unable to provide any loans to other schools. The bill we are considering under suspension today will simply increase the lending authority of the Secretary and establish a new cap to ensure other HBCUs in the pipeline for consideration of such loans will receive those loans. This is a short-term solution to the capital needs of these schools, and we will continue to address the reauthorization in the Higher Education Act the Education and Labor Committee is currently considering. So I want to thank all of those who participated in this legislation. I also want to take a moment, as we are talking about historically black colleges, to remember a pioneer that we lost this last weekend, former Congressman Gus Hawkins, who is a former Chair of the Education and Labor Committee and a member of the California delegation. He was a wonderful politician who had a great vision for this country on behalf of its students and workers. He fought every day of his public life to make their lives better in this country. He was a trailblazer in so many aspects, including advancing legislation that barred employment discrimination and increasing the minimum wage and access to colleges. I had the honor of serving on the committee while Gus was the Chair and can attest to his passion and dedication to the issues that affect America's students and workers. As a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and the first African American to represent California in the Congress, he led the way for many legislators who are here today. Gus was also the author of legislation which established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which continues to combat employment discrimination. Throughout his career, Gus Hawkins authored more than 300 pieces of State and Federal legislation, a feat that few can claim. After retiring, he served as director of the Hawkins Family Memorial Foundation for Education, Research and Development, where Gus continued helping many young people find a path to college. His voice is going to be missed, and I know my thoughts and thoughts of all of our colleagues are with the Hawkins family today. I also want to say that Gus Hawkins was a wonderful friend of my mother and father when Gus and my father served together in the California legislature where they fought many of these same fights on the State level. They were a remarkable group of people who blazed these trails for justice, economic and social justice, in this country. Gus Hawkins set the bar and the standard very high for all of us, and I think it is fitting that we are also addressing the needs of the historically black colleges here on the day we choose to remember him and the delegation will have an hour of remembrance and testimony to Gus and his great accomplishments tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/ 2\ minutes. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to this ENDA legislation that I and Mr. Stupak have written to ensure that this law will protect religious liberties of religious corporations, societies, associations, and in particular, religious schools, including those religious schools that are not affiliated with any particular church or denomination. Our amendment would make it clear that the ENDA exemption matches the religious exemption found in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under my amendment, a religious corporation, association, or school would be categorically exempt from ENDA. In addition, our amendment also clarifies that the references to the term ``married'' refer to the Federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, as enacted in the 1996 Federal law referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act. With respect to the religious exemption, this issue has been the cause of a lot of confusion in the past weeks. The religious exemption that was part of the ENDA bill that passed out of the Education and Labor Committee on October 18 was exceptionally broad; however, several nondenominational religious schools raised concerns that they might not be covered under the ENDA exemption. For example, the president of Wheaton College in Naperville, Illinois, sent a letter to Representative Tim Walberg in advance of the Education and Labor Committee's markup on ENDA. Mr. Walberg then shared that letter with the entire committee, and our Republican colleagues argued that Wheaton College, which is clearly a religious school despite the fact that it is not controlled by or affiliated with any specific church, may not be covered by the ENDA exemption. That argument was incorrect. Wheaton, along with other religious schools and organizations such as the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, asked that we ``ensure that the act categorically exempts religious organizations as in section 702(a) of title VII,'' and we have done precisely what Wheaton 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 section 702(a) or the arguably broader section 703(e)(2), then that organization or school is exempt from ENDA, period. So, if a school qualifies for either one of those exemptions under title VII, it is categorically, as they requested, exempt from ENDA. By directly referencing title VII, we also ensure that the many decades of case law on title VII's religious exemption is imported to ENDA. This amendment provides clarity for religious schools that have experience with the title VII exemption, and it should satisfy all of their legitimate concerns about ENDA. Let me be clear, the title VII exemption, and therefore, the ENDA exemption, applies to both nondenominational religious schools like Wheaton and church-affiliated schools. And as one court explained, ``Even though a Christian corporation or organization is nondenominational, it nevertheless may subscribe to particular religious views with which other Christians do not agree, and conversely, it may disagree with the religious views of other Christians.'' And to go on, the court said, ``This is precisely the situation for which the title VII exemptions were enacted; the exemptions allow religious institutions to employ only persons whose beliefs are consistent with the views of the religious organization.'' And that is the purpose of this exemption. That is the purpose of this amendment. In addition to clarifying the scope of the ENDA religious exemption, my amendment also specifically states that the references to marriage in ENDA refers to the definition of marriage as defined in Federal law. Specifically, these terms in ENDA are given the meaning provided by the Federal law that is referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for Federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. That is the definition that applies to ENDA, and my amendment makes that definition absolutely clear. Madam Chairman, because our amendment offers strong protections for religious organizations, including nondenominational or nonaffiliated religious schools, and because our amendment clarifies that the Defense of Marriage Act operates to define the term ``marriage'' in this bill, I trust that the Miller amendment will receive a large bipartisan vote in its favor. Madam Chairman, I would like now to yield 4 minutes to my cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I first want to correct some of the mistaken assumptions that I think Mr. Souder just made in his remarks. He claims that the language of section 8(a)(3) would undermine the definition of marriage that some States have chosen to adopt. This is untrue. Even after ENDA becomes law, regardless of whether section 8(a)(3) remains in the bill or is taken out, the States, for purposes of State law, decide marriage issues for themselves. Nothing in ENDA would change that. Nothing in ENDA would alter the Federal laws referred to in the Defense of Marriage Act. Second, Mr. Souder makes a claim that section 8(a)(3) would have prevented an employer from firing an employee who has extramarital sex. Frankly, I don't see anything in the text of 8(a)(3) that discusses extramarital sex. In fact, I don't see anything anywhere in the text of ENDA that discusses extramarital sex, and I can't understand how Mr. Souder's come to this conclusion about extramarital sex. But the entire issue is just a diversion from what ENDA actually does. ENDA is very simple. ENDA will prevent employers from firing a perfectly qualified gay, lesbian or bisexual employee just because of that employee's sexual orientation. Madam Chairman, in short, I will vote for this amendment, but the fact of the matter is I don't think it is necessary. But Mr. Souder has pursued this course, and I think that it's important. Another important provision of ENDA is the nondiscrimination section that already outlaws employers from discriminating based upon sexual orientation through any pretext policy including the pretext of marital status. Moreover, many States, including Mr. Souder's home State in Indiana, have already created State laws that allow a plaintiff to sue their employer based upon marital status discrimination. And those State laws would further protect against pretextual discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. Finally, I want to explain in more detail why I will vote for Mr. Souder's amendment. I have realized that section 8(a)(3) is redundant. It is unnecessary. The concern that section 8(a)(3) has sought to address and will actually be addressed in many cases by section 4 of ENDA. Let me explain this concern. When Mr. Frank and other original ENDA sponsors and I wrote this bill, we were worried that a clever discriminatory employer might realize he could not fire a gay employee specifically because of his or her sexual orientation, so the discriminatory employer might decide to create a pretextual 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 8(a)(3). However, the thing that convinced me to vote for the Souder amendment is the fact that section 4 of ENDA, which my committee marked up and favorably reported, makes the Souder amendment practically irrelevant. Section 4 of ENDA is the portion of the bill that will very clearly prohibit the discrimination based upon sexual orientation. So if an employer is actually discriminating based upon sexual orientation, but is pretending that the decision is based upon marital status, the gay plaintiff will have the opportunity to convince a Federal jury of that fact. Consider the following example: A large accounting firm that has no policy whatsoever about whether its accountants should be single or married. That's not hard to picture because not many accounting firms anywhere in America have a policy that requires an accountant to be married. Being a good accountant is the reason that they hire people. Then imagine that one of the accountants in a branch office let's his coworkers know that he is gay. Now let's say that the branch office has a homophobic manager who the very next day sends out a memo announcing a new policy in the branch office that all accountants will have to be married to keep their job. The manager has figured out this new policy will allow him to fire gay or lesbian accountants, and it happens only to an accountant who is unmarried. Also imagine that after sending out the memo, the homophobic branch manager sends an e-mail to some of his colleagues explaining: ``Now that we have our new marriage policy, we can fire that disgusting homosexual accountant.'' That gay accountant will be able to file a lawsuit pursuant to ENDA. 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 he was really fired because of sexual orientation, not because of marriage policy. And that is why this legislation exists. My point of this scenario that I've just described to you is that already covered by section 4 of ENDA stating that the same thing of section 8(a)(3) is just redundant. For all of these reasons I will vote for the amendment offered by Mr. Souder. Even if 8(a)(3) is stricken from ENDA, I believe that the gay plaintiff will still be able to succeed in court and have a meritorious claim. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), one of the pioneers of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chairman and Members of the House, it is disgraceful but true that in much of the United States, it is perfectly legal for employers to fire workers 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 1975, more than 30 years ago, and in the last three decades, gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans have waged a courageous campaign for their workplace rights. I regret that they have had to wait so long for this vote, but I am pleased that this historic day has finally arrived. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act ensures that employment decisions are based upon merit and performance and not prejudice. Federal law and the laws of 30 States permit employers to discriminate against employees based solely on their sexual orientation. In those 30 States, employers can fire, refuse to hire, demote, or refuse to promote employees on the basis of sexual orientation alone. Earlier this year, under Chairman Andrews, the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee heard testimony from Michael Carney, a highly decorated police officer. Officer Carney was initially denied the opportunity to return to his job with the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department because he is gay. Fortunately, Massachusetts is not one of the 30 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 for Brooke Waites, who testified at the hearing. Ms. Waites was fired from her job in telecommunications after her employer discovered that she was a lesbian. Since the State of Texas allows employers to fire workers based on sexual orientation, Ms. Waites had no recourse. She could not get her job back. It's hard to believe that fully qualified, capable individuals are being denied employment or fired from their jobs for these completely nonwork-related reasons. This is profoundly unfair and certainly un- American. Unless we act to outlaw this discrimination, millions of American workers will continue to live with the legitimate fear that they could be fired or denied a job and 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 Non-Discrimination Act extends employment nondiscrimination protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual people. It prohibits employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual's sexual orientation as a basis for employment decisions such as hiring and firing, promotion, or compensation. The bill prohibits employers from subjecting an individual to different standards of treatment based upon the individual's sexual orientation. The bill does not apply to businesses with less than 15 workers, private membership clubs, or the U.S. Armed Forces. And it does not apply to religious schools or other religious organizations. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the Chair of the subcommittee that did a marvelous job in handling this legislation. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I just say, Madam Chairman, it's a rather interesting set of remarks, except it has nothing to do with the underlying legislation that is before us today. I yield for the purpose of unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from New York. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the frustration of my colleagues on the other side the aisle. They really don't like this bill. They don't believe that we should be outlawing discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals. What they are upset about is that most of the handles that they thought they could grab on to 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 many of the religious organizations strongly supported. We listened to the debate. We went back to them and suggested that a straight exemption from title VII would be preferable for all of those involved. So we have continued 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 of the United States because it does what it says it is going to do. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).