Sean Maloney

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Well, then, let me just say again, the point of today's vote is to redo a mistake that was made in this House. But of course it wasn't really a mistake, was it? It was an effort to change the outcome of a bipartisan majority supporting an amendment to end discrimination in Federal contracting. So today, what we are doing is getting a second bite at that apple, giving Members a chance to vote their conscience, to do the right thing, free from any pressure, free from any vote swapping or switching, free from a clock being held open long after it should have closed. The American people want to know if their government is on the level, so let's have this vote on the level. We know there is a bipartisan majority for equality in this House, and, if allowed a fair vote, we know what the outcome will be. I look forward to that vote, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I have the amendment read back? Does it include only the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague what is meant by Article I of the Constitution, if he could clarify that for us. No one who supports my amendment--certainly, not I--has any problem with the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection Clause, or with Article I of the Constitution, I assure the gentleman. I also, however, would note--and I am sure the gentleman would appreciate--that many times throughout American history, Presidents, under their authority under the Constitution, have acted in the area of workplace discrimination, particularly in the executive branch. For example, would the gentleman oppose President Truman's action to integrate the armed services? Perhaps he would like that order to be circumscribed in some way, if he thinks that violates Article I of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, or the First Amendment to the Constitution? In other words, the President has, throughout American history, under his constitutional authority, taken actions to widen the circle of opportunity and to end discrimination in the executive branch. Nothing in my amendment is in any way at odds with the Constitution of the United States or the amendments thereto, but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged on the floor of this House to suggest that President Obama, in his executive action in 2014, ran afoul of any of those things either. Indeed, I am unaware of any legal challenge to the President's action in those executive orders of 2014. It is pretty clear to me that, if there was something illegal or unconstitutional about them, there would have been a challenge. I don't think anybody seriously contests the President's authority to do what he did in 2014, and many Americans welcome it as one of the signature equal protection actions by a Commander in Chief or by a President of the United States. So, far from being concerned about reconciling our activities with the Constitution, we believe they are perfectly consistent. Therefore, I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to also include, since we are so fond of the Constitution, Article II of the Constitution which specifies the powers of the President? If the gentleman would answer that question. In other words, if we are so fond of the Constitution, what do you say we follow the whole thing, including the Civil War amendments, including some of the things about equal protection and due process. You might have heard something about that. We had a little bit dispute about that in the mid-19th century. What do you say we abide by the whole Constitution; the part that tries to make it more progressive, more inclusive of people like me, of people of color, of women, of people who are shut out when it was written? How about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that? Hearing no objection, I assume we are including the entire Constitution, including the powers of the President under Article II. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, last week, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to preserve basic workplace protections for LGBT Americans. My amendment would have kept taxpayer dollars from going to government contractors who discriminate against LGBT employees. That is it. It said you cannot take taxpayer dollars and fire people just for being gay. There are 28 million Americans working for employers who receive taxpayer dollars, and simple math will tell you millions would have been protected from arbitrary firing. So it made sense, it was fair, and it deserved a fair vote. When the vote was held, a bipartisan majority of this House, including 36 members of the majority party, supported my amendment. That tally clock right there showed 217 ``yes'' votes--4 more than the 213 needed that day to pass. With all time expired, it was clear as can be that equality had won the vote. But when the world watched, something else happened. Something shameful happened. Something about sticking up for basic workplace fairness for LGBT Americans rankled certain people around here. Even though my amendment simply would have applied the same standard to LGBT employees that we have long applied when people are fired because of their race or gender or religion or disability, it simply was too much. Even though we would have preserved time-honored religious exemptions, it was too much. Something about treating LGBT people fairly just wouldn't do. So people went to work. Even though all Members had voted, strangely, the expired clock stayed up four times longer than it should have. The gavel did not fall. And as we all watched, the tally began to change: 217, 216, 215. The votes in support were dropping. Members of this House were changing their votes. Why? From being in support of fairness, they were now changing them to be opposed to it. Down the vote went, 214, 213, and yet no one came to the well, as is customary, to announce their vote. It was all in secret, happening out of sight, so no one might see the ugly reality of what was happening. And what happened? Well, when it hit 212, one vote shy of the majority it needed to pass--one vote shy of the majority it had a few moments earlier--the gavel came down and the result was declared. A defeat. It was a shameful exercise, made more shameful in that it took place on a civil rights vote that enjoyed a bipartisan majority of support in this House. From Portland, Maine, to Des Moines, Iowa, to southeast Oregon, to Bakersfield, California, newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts, and ordinary citizens joined a chorus that was heard first on this floor. ``Shame,'' they said. Shame on those who would betray the will of this House, who would betray this vote, and shame on anyone who would rig this vote and rig our democracy. Shame on those who snatched discrimination from the jaws of equality, especially those ``Switching Seven'' who, having at first voted for fairness, allowed themselves to be dragged backward into voting for discrimination. On Friday, at a meeting of my Veterans' Advisory Board back home, I spoke to decorated military heroes and civilians who have dedicated their lives to the service of this country. To a person, they were outraged by what happened on the floor of this House. One member of the group, Edie, who served as a first lieutenant and combat medic in Vietnam, said when she heard about the rigged vote, she thought of her daughter, who right now is serving her country in the military. And Edie's daughter is a lesbian. Edie said: When my daughter finishes her active military service, she will enter the civilian workforce--perhaps for a government contractor, as so many vets do. Will they be able to fire her, even though she and I are both veterans? Mr. Chairman, does Edie's service in combat count for anything here? Does her daughter's service right now to this country count for anything here? Her daughter isn't alone. There are 71,000 Active Duty LGBT servicemen and -women right now and over 1 million LGBT veterans. Making it easier to fire LGBT Americans, even LGBT veterans, isn't honoring our values. It is sacrificing them to preserve a worn out and dying prejudice that weakens our Nation rather than strengthening it. So, today, I want to thank Speaker Ryan for allowing an open process so that I can offer my amendment again. It is through this open process that we can give our colleagues another chance--a second chance--to do the right thing and to stand for equality. Let us this time ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to discriminate against hardworking Americans simply because of who they are, simply because of who they love. And we will also reaffirm legitimate religious exemptions that the President also included in his executive orders on this subject. Discrimination has no place in our law. It does not make our water cleaner. It does not power our homes. It doesn't defeat ISIS. It doesn't support our veterans. Every American deserves the right to work, support a family, and achieve the American Dream, regardless of who they are or who they love. I urge my colleagues to stand up to discrimination and adopt my amendment to the bill.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that we stand here as servants of the Constitution, all of us, and all of the actions we take here are subject to that beautiful document, as amended. So there is nothing about the gentleman's amendment, to the extent that it simply restates what is obvious which is that all of our actions are subject to the Constitution, that we would object to. My only point is simply that we need to read it as a whole document. We don't need to read anything into it. We can read the text. We can understand the history of the text. We can understand the global and expansive nature of the language written into the Constitution after the searing experience of the Civil War around equal protection, around due process. We don't fear the Constitution; we welcome it. We embrace it. We claim it as our own when we come to this floor and ask that the circle of opportunity be widened for others who have been excluded before. We think that is in the best tradition of the American Constitution. We believe the Constitution provides a series of promises that, as King said, it is a promissory note and that a check was written; we are coming to cash it so we will all be treated equally, so we will all be treated fairly, that we all count. Regardless of who we love, regardless of the color of our skin, whether we walk in or roll in, we believe we all count. And we believe that the Constitution enshrines those values in the most beautiful way in all of human history. So, far from being concerned in any way by the gentleman's amendment, we welcome it. But let it not detract from the fact that what happened in this House was an effort to enshrine and rationalize discrimination under Federal law. And despite the success we had in defeating that with a bipartisan majority, there were those here who wanted to perpetuate discrimination at the expense of equality. That is inconsistent with the Constitution, Mr. Chairman. And let that be the final word on this.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last night, this House adopted a provision as part of the defense bill that rolls back antidiscrimination provisions contained in executive orders issued by the President in recent years. This is one of the ugliest episodes I have experienced in my 3-plus years as a Member of this House. The inclusion of such hate-based language in a defense bill designed to support our military sends exactly the wrong message at a time when we should all be unified in supporting the efforts of our servicemembers around the world. My father was a veteran. He was nearly killed in the service of his country. I have never voted against a defense bill before. I never thought I would. Almost a quarter of the constituents I represent in the Hudson Valley of New York come from families where a member is serving in the military or has served in the military. I represent the United States Military Academy at West Point. We have helped 800 veterans, one at a time, out of my district office in my 3 years in Congress, and we have passed legislation directly aimed at making their lives better. So, it is not with an easy heart that I come to the House floor and oppose the defense bill, but this legislation snuck into the bill--and was kept in the bill--despite a bipartisan effort to remove it, sends exactly the wrong signal and it says that we are so concerned about discriminating against a group of LGBT Americans that we are willing to destroy the bipartisan cooperation we should have on the defense bill. So my amendment today gives us another chance. It gives us a chance to correct some of the damage done last night by some Members of this body. What it would say is quite simple: we shall not do anything in this bill that contravenes the antidiscrimination executive orders of the President. It is pretty simple. We should not be spending taxpayer dollars to promote hate, and we should not be justifying that by some religious exemption, when, in fact, the language in the defense bill simply rolls back the antidiscrimination provisions that the President put in an executive order to those contained in the original Civil Rights Act and the ADA. It is specifically designed to exclude LGBT Americans. And in doing that, it aligns itself with the parallel efforts we see happening in States like North Carolina. It is wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with our military; it doesn't have anything to do with fighting ISIS; it doesn't have anything to do with religious protections. It is about bigotry, plain and simple. Today, we have another chance to do the right thing and to send the right message and to stick up for our military.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I want to acknowledge that it was the gentleman from Pennsylvania, together with Mr. Hanna from New York, who courageously led the effort to roll back the discrimination in a bipartisan way in the Rules Committee. And that effort was thwarted. So I am very honored by the gentleman's support, and I am honored by the position you have taken in this House over the last couple of days. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Well, I appreciate the admiration. Let me ask my colleague: Is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians to support our military?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. It was resolved last night. It was resolved last night in the affirmative. In other words, this House said that it would include in a defense bill a provision that would roll back basic employment questions for gays and lesbians. My question to my colleague is simply, Mr. Chairman, if that is necessary for the promotion of national defense. Is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgender Americans to keep our country safe?

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I would like to again express my thanks for my colleague's admiration. It is nice to have admiration. It is better to have rights and it is better to be treated equally and without condescension. I would just note, Mr. Chairman, that the question remains unanswered of whether it is necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians in Federal contracting to protect our country, to support our troops? Is it necessary to remove employment protections in employers covering 28 million Americans so that we can fight the war on ISIS? Is it necessary to protect ourselves in our houses of worship by discriminating in Federal contracting in businesses that are in the business of commerce and in private contracting? It is a tired and old and false choice to suggest that we need to discriminate to keep ourselves safe, to keep ourselves free. And people in earlier times have made those arguments, and they have, one after another, been reversed. So the notion that because this House did it last night, it can't get it right today, is at odds with a lot of American history. This House got a lot of things wrong for a lot of people for a lot of years. And then finally, slowly, almost despite ourselves, we figured out that we can be safe and free and equal. And in fact, becoming more equal in some ways makes us safer because it is the promotion of our values through our actions and our ideas and our words, not just our weapons that promote our values around the world.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have never voted against the defense bill, and I never thought I would. My dad was a veteran who was nearly killed serving his country. He taught me to respect those who serve and to speak plainly about right and wrong. So let me speak plainly now. This bill writes antigay bias into Federal law. It strips LGBT Americans of basic workplace protections by reversing the President's anti-discrimination orders, saying it is once again legal for your LGBT neighbors and family members to be fired because of who they are. This is wrong. This is not about supporting our troops. It is not about fighting ISIS. It is not about religious protections. We can do all that, and we should. This is about bigotry, plain and simple. But we can fix it by embracing the bipartisan effort, denied by the Rules Committee, to remove this hateful language and keep everything else. Mr. Speaker, this is not some procedural vote to be waived away; this is about whether we will reaffirm equal rights or rationalize discrimination. When my husband and I got married, after waiting 22 years, so many of you expressed your support. Will you now look me in the eye and say that it would be okay for me to lose my job over it? Just today, a Member of this House, refusing to help strike this antigay language, said to me: But you know where I am on your issues. I said: No. This is where you are on my issues. Your vote is where you are on my issues. And this is where your children and where history will remember you are standing on our issues. You have the opportunity here and now to strike this antigay language and, in doing so, strike a blow for equality. Mr. Speaker, we are told that we are to make America great again. Well, you cannot make America great by making America hate. Vote against discrimination. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding. I want to echo my thanks as well to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone and my good friend, Mr. Lance of New Jersey. I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 4976, the Opioid Review Modernization Act. Heroin and opioid addiction is a serious and growing epidemic, especially in the communities I represent in the lower Hudson Valley of New York. After more than 55 townhalls with my neighbors across the Hudson Valley in the last 3\1/2\ years, I can say there is no subject I have heard about more in visits to communities throughout my district. Really, everywhere I go, I hear heartbreaking stories of addiction and of loss, and we have had far too many funerals. I spoke to a woman named Cynthia in Newburgh who told me her son struggles every day with addiction. He is trying to stay clean, but he can't find a meeting locally to visit. A woman named Samantha from Brewster said she is worried about the basic lack of options for treating addicts like her son. Patricia in Warwick has said the facilities there lack the basic necessities for treating addicts like her son. We have a shortage of beds for patients who are seeking treatment. In Dutchess County, New York, alone, we have seen a 160 percent increase in the number of drug overdoses since 2009. This epidemic is being felt nationwide. It doesn't care about the color of your skin or the size of your paycheck. Deaths from heroin overdoses have more than tripled since 2010 in our country, and it is often driven by an addiction first to prescription pain medicine. We now have more than 47,000 people dying a year, the equivalent of 125 Americans every day. It is a staggering figure, Mr. Speaker, and we in Congress can and must do more to fight this growing epidemic. So my bill takes an important, but simple, step to avoid opioid addiction and to avoid further loss by using both new technologies and a little common sense. Specifically, it would require the Food and Drug Administration to consult with expert advisory committees for the approval of new opioids that do not use deterrent properties, such as extended-release capsules. We know this can thwart the misuse of these products by people who are struggling with addiction. Additionally, the legislation will encourage the development of generic opioids that utilize these abuse-deterrent properties. And, of course, the FDA can do more. We can require them to evaluate and make recommendations on better programs to prevent prescribers of opioids from overprescribing, since we often hear that it is that overprescription that leads people into trouble with opioids and, later, with heroin. As part of a comprehensive package of legislation to combat the opioid epidemic, my bill is just one more tool in our toolkit, providing incentives for pharmaceutical companies to use antiabuse technologies and create a plan to educate our well-meaning doctors about the potential dangers of prescription opioids. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important measure.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, Lillian Vernon, a woman who personified the American Dream and inspired generations of girls and boys, passed away this week. Lillian was born Lilli Menasche in Leipzig, Germany, in 1927. Her family arrived here in 1937 after fleeing the new Nazi regime. She attended NYU for a couple of years before leaving to get married. And shortly after her nuptials, the newly pregnant Lillian gathered together what little wedding money she had to start a mail order business from her home in Mount Vernon, New York. She took the name Vernon as her own, and the Lillian Vernon Company was born. She put an advertisement in ``Seventeen'' magazine for a personalized purse and belt for $5; and within weeks, she had $34,000 dollars in orders. By 1970, Lillian Vernon had her first million-dollar year. A few decades later, she had nine catalogues, 15 outlet stores, two Web sites, a business-to-business division, and yearly revenue close to $300 million. She was a role model for women. She started her company when working mothers were often criticized and female entrepreneurs could rarely get credit. But undeterred, she persevered. She was also a trailblazer outside the business world and was known for her charity and her devotion to so many causes, including her dedication to the Lillian Vernon Foundation, which supports the U.S. Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, Literacy Volunteers of America, and a number of other charities. In 2011, Vernon was honored with the Project Sunshine Award for Philanthropic Leadership and was appointed by President Clinton as chairwoman of the National Women's Business Council in 1995. Above all, she was a mother. She was dedicated to her two sons, David and Fred, both of whom worked in the family business with her. I had the pleasure of meeting Lillian throughout the years. And I can say that even a reading of her accolades and accomplishments would fail to give a sense of just how special this wonderful woman truly was. We have lost a great American, and she will be sorely missed.

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the atrocities that recently occurred at this year's pride parade in Istanbul, Turkey. For years, the Turkish LGBT community and their supporters have been able to partake in one of the few permitted pride parades in the Muslim world, but this year this peaceful parade was broken up when police dispersed the parade with tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons, reminiscent of the worst full countertactics of the American civil rights movement. LGBT pride gatherings are peaceful, focusing on love and solidarity and the human rights of all people, including LGBT people, which is a stark contrast to the unnecessary and brutal violence endured by those parade-goers. This past May I had the opportunity to visit the brave LGBT activists in Turkey and to speak to them about their hopes for a better community. As a member of the LGBT community and of the Congressional Equality Caucus, I am deeply disturbed by the way in which such a positive festival was received by the Turkish Government. Turkey has long expressed, by its commitments to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, its dedication to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Turkey is a NATO ally. Its actions are at odds with these previous commitments to freedom. I am urging this Congress to join me in condemning these actions. Today we will send a letter signed by more than 50 Members of this body to the Turkish Ambassador, expressing our outrage by these actions and our support of the Turkish people.