[House Report 110-422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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 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.
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,''.
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.