administration recognition of the compelling interest in ending this harmful discrimination. while the government had the compelling interest in eradicating discrimination and employment we also recognize the interest that has been balanced with religious rights of employers. given its history religious employers already benefit from ample exemption from federal nondiscrimination provisions. specifically, title vii provides strong protection for religious organizations including exemptions for religious employers in the context of hiring and firing rate for the example code of ministerial exemption examined by the supreme court versus eeoc exempts employers from discrimination when making employment decisions involving ministerial staff. this exemption has been extended by the court to include many other non- ministerial employees whose job is to serve a

religious function including professors, teachers and even a cemetery personnel. additional exemptions are not only necessary but could lead to adverse consequences for discrimination protection. if nondiscrimination provisions protecting the workers from discrimination on the job will not infringe upon the religious beliefs of employers. employers already have these ample protections under the first amendment and explicit statutory exemptions. the courts have also not been shy of playing bees in the rights liberally. the supreme court noted that the u.s. constitution gives a special solitude to the rights of religious organizations. the supreme court has also recognized that the government has a unique and compelling interest in protecting against employment discrimination. writing for the majority in hobby lobby, justice alito rejected the possibility that discrimination and hiring might be a religious practice to a scapegoat legal sanction.

he wrote the decision today provides no such yield and the government has a compelling interest in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce. america's top corporations and businesses to support comprehensive nondiscrimination workplace protection. they remain competitive and they must retain the best possible talent including the members of the lgbt community. the civil rights community also stands behind comprehensive nondiscrimination workplace protections including the coalition of more than 200 civil rights religious, labor and women's rights organizations. in the coalition partners they support the introduction of comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation that will protect americans from discrimination not just in employment but also in housing, education, public accommodations jury service and credit. think you for the opportunity to testify today.

>> good morning mr. chairman and numbers of the commission i would like to thank you for inviting the national task force to participate in this briefing to examine the workplace discrimination in the states by lesbian gay bisexual and transgender. in the government affairs and the government affairs for the national lgbt task force, the nation's oldest advocacy organization. today's testimony will examine the scope of the federal protections to eliminate discrimination against lgbt employees. lgbt americans face high levels of an employment discrimination. there are an estimated 5.4 million lgbt workers in the united states discrimination against people in the workplace persist despite sising visibility of the communities improved improve local and statewide protections against

the prejudice and the data indicates that the discrimination can lead to significant impact on the economic, social and physical well-being. over 50 studies of discrimination against lesbian, gay shows that they have significant barriers to equality. even fewer studies have been conduct at about discrimination from transgender people and to address the gap in 2011 and the joint effort of the national center for the transgender equal to be the task force published at every turn the report of the national transgender discrimination survey. this documents the discrimination transgender people experience in employment, education, healthcare and many other areas. our key finding is this. the state of the transgender workers of the country is abysmal. discrimination in employment is

a nearly universal experience with 90% of the surveys reporting mistreatment or discrimination on the job or taking action by hiding who they are to avoid it. nearly half lost their jobs and in the spirit he did experience of outcomes many stemmed from the discrimination they face in and play meant later on in this afternoon's panel on the transgender issues you will hear more about this survey and the findings from this landmark research that we conducted. a point about the data collection was made earlier that i would like to reiterate. because lgbt people face staggering levels in employment, housing, public accommodations and as the policies change we expect it to decline.

however in order to measure the change in discrimination and to create interventions that accurately respond to the needs of the lgbt community we need to collect more data on lgbt people and in the coming years as they receive complaints and as the second nation study of transgender people is administered and the data on the discrimination will be collected if they reflect but simply the measures were simply not enough. more comprehensive data collection is needed. every federal agency should be charged with collecting information on orientation and gender identity in all of their surveys. this effort can be spearheaded by the executive order calling for the agencies to determine the best method for integrating these into the data collection instruments and so for example workplace discrimination data can be collected through the inclusion in the population-based surveys of the

workforce like the community survey and those by the bureau of labor statistics. with regards to the cases of discrimination from instances of discrimination occur across sectors at any stage of the employment process and various fuel sectors and provisions and highlighted discrimination in hiring firing and workplace harassment were included in a testimony to this body. lgbt workplace protections exist as we heard from earlier testimony that the connections are needed. in recent years, the workplace employment protections have gained the momentum such that we have 19 states and washington d.c. that have employment non- discrimination laws that protect them from the grounds of orientation and gender identity and cover the orientation. they've recognized the prohibition on the sex discrimination to the gender

identity and sexual orientation. federally this brings protections to the nonconforming people. in 2014 the president issued an executive order protecting the federal contractors from discrimination. however to ensure they are eradicated we need explicit inclusion in the gender identity and sexual orientation and federal legislation without establishing the orientation and gender identity as the protected classes and players are likely to be aware of the potential liability under federal law and lgbt nonconforming employees are also likely unaware of their rights to be free from discrimination on the job or take recourse. the path of the assessment would serve to prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation sexual orientation or gender identity in the same way that title vii of 64 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color religion,

sex or national origin. in conclusion, workplace discrimination is a pervasive issue that prevents employees from contributing their talents to the nation's workforce. workers who in counter are faced with the perilous choice of either hiding their identity in the workplace or risking a discriminatory treatment and harassment by disclosing their identity. while eeoc protections take shape and issue guidance that will take time for employers and employees to recognize the legal protections available. we hope more data will be collected as we await a new legal precedent or legislation is enacted .-full-stop the matter in the past. on behalf of the task force i would like to thank the commission further opportunity to provide the statement on the discrimination.

>> good morning. it's an honor to be here today. i am the executive vice president for external affairs for the center of american progress. the nonpartisan educational institution is dedicated to improving the lives of all americans in the progressive ideas and actions. as an institution and as americans we believe we be leaving the rights of all people to equal opportunity and society and equal protection of the law. yet today in america it remains illegal in 29 seats to fire an individual because of their sexual orientation. in 32 states that lack basic explicit protections from discrimination in the workplace. and despite the progress we have seen on marriage a quality same sex couples can be legally married and legally fired for doing so all on the same day. workplace protections lie at the center of america's

nondiscrimination law for marginalized communities these protections serve as an intro goal part of the american dream and a gateway to equal opportunity and financial stability. the lack of binding and innovative federal protections for lesbian, gay and transgender workers remains in order to combat the pervasive discrimination based in all areas of life including and particularly in an employment. in june the center for progress in collaboration with our partners in the movement advancement project at human rights campaign released a comprehensive report outlining the broken bargain for workers that leaves many unable to provide the basics for themselves and their families. the report demonstrated with many of our families know too well that workers face serious barriers to both gaining and keeping a job due to discrimination based on

orientation and gender identity. among lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender individuals they reported being denied or passed over for promotion because of the orientation while one in ten reported having been fired in the last five years because of whom they love. the rate of discrimination are even more alarming for the transgender people. 47% of whom have reported being fired, not fired or denied a promotion because of their gender identity. of the 47% roughly half of the reported they already had because they were transgender. for americans with jobs many reported experiencing unequal pages are to their identity. they make ten to 32% less than straight men with similar backgrounds in comparable jobs.

similarly transgender women see a pay decrease after transgenic -- transitioning at a significantly higher than the petition. while employment laws remain at the heart for the nondiscrimination protections, any discussion about fair and equal access to the job cannot be java cannot be limited to protections in the workplace. the ability to find work does not begin or end with the application process. it also includes the ability to gain a quality education in the secure stable housing and have equal access to the goods and services that every american needs to live and thrive. this past december my colleagues at the center released center released a report entitled to believe that people which outlined the discrimination faced by lgbt people in employment housing education

credit and public accommodations. the report called on congress to join the growing number of states in passing the comprehensive lgbt nondiscrimination act which would've provided an based on sexual orientation and gender identity and the vital aspects of life. lgbt americans are routinely denied shelter and more than half feel unsafe in their schools and customers are too often refuse to equal access or treatment in the nation's marketplace. without protections on the discrimination along with protections in an employment too many americans will be denied the basic tools necessary to gain employment. despite these alarming instances of the discrimination both in and outside of the workplace considerable progress has been made on the federal level to utilize existing civil rights protections to combat discrimination against americans. two years ago the eeoc rightly

determined that the discrimination on the gender identity employment constituted illegal sex discrimination under title vii and today the department of justice is utilizing the same rationale to combat workplace discrimination by public employers. in a single largest expansion of the workplace protections in our nations history, president obama added sexual orientation and gender protection to the executive order in the discrimination by federal contractors. in the courts or through the legislature are most likely the fact remains that the force of the law rely on adequate resources. when you leave this is a relic of the past, the number of overall dissemination charges filed has reached historic

levels. they have a full than 20 years ago. the same trend is occurring in many offices charged with enforcing the nation's civil rights laws. many offices are already proactively protecting many in the community. the fact that they are doing so with diminishing the stuff is unacceptable and as we consider to push congress to expand the protections to the americans we also will push for the necessary appropriations to ensure that the current and future nondiscrimination protections are fully enforced. in conclusion as the recent report notes the american dream rests on the promise of a level playing field. a society where all people have equal access to the central pillars of opportunities with a significant discrimination faced

by lgbt americans it is abundantly clear to ensure that level playing field americans both need and deserve the same protections that are currently afforded to all others. the time has come to ensure fairness and to find that fairness for all americans regardless of their orientation or gender identity. thank you very much. >> you have to first question on the panel. >> thank you for taking the time to be with us. my question is for ms. simmons as we look at existing workplace protections, which one day could include we heard from an earlier panel some of the numbers on.com planes -- complains regarding the discrimination. some might describe those

contained numbers is rather small in others might call them miniscule. when you say that it's universal universal to universal thing you time you said that with workplace discrimination if they pervasive issue. address for me the argument that some might make that the figures that we have available don't support the strong description that you have given regarding the pervasiveness discrimination. >> the points that i was offering was from the national transgender discrimination survey and that was limited to

two over 6500 transgender individuals that were serving across the nation and across the u.s. territory. so that was particular. the second point with respect to those that were referenced from the department of labor i think that it's critical that we continue to examine what discrimination is happening because the aspects are happening simultaneously in terms of the public becoming aware of their rights and the ability to file such claims for the government agencies to be responsive such as the department of labor to be responsive to the types of claims that are being filed and in addition, i think that if i a point that was made earlier with respect to the marketplace is

another indicator that it's moving to provide a safe workplace for employees and what we are simply looking for is a way to have the number going the go in the opposite direction in terms of the discrimination on creating a workplace that has more supporters. >> commissioner. >> one question. it was referenced that there were over 50 studies of discrimination that have been undertaken on the conclusion of which studies or the employment discrimination against lgbt people is a significant and

pervasive. in 2007 and analysis was done by the institute which drew the same conclusion. and it is my understanding that for more than 40 years you are organization has made a counseling line and i would imagine that you gather specifics and that's your co of time. can you discuss how the conclusions of the study is in the analysis compared to the statistics that you've gathered over this period and can you also identify the kind of discrimination that are

pertinent to this and very quick >> what we see is consistent with what the studies in the report see so to the vice chair's question many of the calls we get are from individuals in the states where there are no protections. if they live in in the state there are protections it is an easy answer for them. we encourage them to file a complaint and refer them to attorneys that that to are due in employment discrimination cases. there is recourse they can take and then the resource is to hook them up with the knowledgebase and someone who can be their advocate. much of the calls we get are in states where there is protection and it's been recently in light of the eeoc ruling that we've seen an expansion of the title vii perhaps being available as a

vehicle. many times the difficult answer we give to people when they call saying that they suffered some adverse employment action is i'm sorry there is nothing we can do. there is no protection and estate. so i want to point out that the numbers are very significant. and the nature is the whole gamut. most of the calls that we get are a long two tracks either an employee is going along finding their job giving a good job getting the good performance reviews, doing well, being promoted and then something happens where they are discovered to be lesbian gay bisexual or transgender. they see a facebook post that they do get married, a couple attended the wedding and the rest of the office realize realize weight we didn't know that we have a gay come lesbian or bisexual person working for us or in another manner they come after someone and then it's

told to other people people and all of a sudden things go straight downhill. either they are fired outright were all of a sudden the performance evaluations documenting two minutes late documenting bringing coffee when you're not supposed to have coffee at your desk and all sorts of things start to happen and very soon they lose their jobs or the second track that we see the most is her estimate on the job. the irony is many employers will go through a long period of open harassment or negative adverse job actions thinking that they can't fire the individual something based on their orientation when they would be perfectly free to do so. they are tortured over a period of time either based on the sexual orientation or gender identity this can take the tone of the anti-gay harassment or sexual harassment and eventually they either quit or they are

terminated from their job. so, we get about 7,000 calls a year about 30% of those are employment related and doubled up those are in either one of those two broad scenarios. >> commissioner. >> thank you mr. chair and i want to thank the panelists and the previous panel. >> i apologize for my absence today. this is an extremely important subject for me personally. it's something the commission appointed to over ten years ago in the campaign fund we talked about how we try to bring these types of issues [inaudible]

and i want to thank all of my colleagues. [inaudible] but i wanted to go to the legal basis for the nondiscrimination act passed on interstate commerce and the discussion from the advocates on the panel on why you believe that has a substantial impact in the justice department.

>> our economy is interconnected. we no longer live in the world in which we stay in that area. mom and pop shops are virtually a thing of the past when you are talking about production sold within a given area. they purchase the goods that they are then selling it to the customers from all over the world, not just from within the united states. congress has had ample opportunity and has passed many laws that ensure nondiscrimination not only on the basis of race but also on

the basis of religion and disability. they have weighed in on these issues time and time again and never has the court reached the conclusion that the congress doesn't have the right to pass the law prohibiting discrimination in employment. as i mentioned in my testimony just very recently, one of the most conservative members of the supreme court justice alito found that there was a compelling government interest in having the nondiscrimination law and placing the employment arena. if you felt that that was not true or that the congress didn't have the right to pass a law the law to begin with he had ample opportunity to do so. i will refer to my written testimony indicates is that i

find. the supreme court has said that there has to be a substantial effect on interstate commerce in order for the congress to pass the ball into the circumstances. and as i read the united states versus morrison i think the congress is going to have a hard time meeting those standards. the kind of chain of events pointed to is something that the court explicitly warned about court explicitly warned about in its decision in morrison and i would add also with respect to the other enumerated powers of the congress signs in the fifth amendment or section five of the 14th amendment the florida board of regents is a substantial hurdle for the united states for the congress to clear.

.. we don't have this law on the

books now, it was not part of a discussion in terms of the constitutionality of employment protections and civil rights laws for congress. >> let me say that i don't doubt that, and i think that unfortunately congress and this is true of both sides of the aisle, frequently thinks they can do whatever it wants. and i think that the sensitization of congress that no, you actually need them in greater power you can add is something that has only recently taken hold, you know unfortunately. i remember just about the time that you're talking about that time period. i was talking with a senate staffer about enda and about this problem. and he said well, you know, i think that we would have to be absolutely convinced that no court would uphold this before

we would before we would hesitate to pass a statute like this. i thought that that was appalling mindset for someone to have. i think that somebody, this is a congressional staffer, i think that the mindset should be that unless a congressman believes himself that there will be a substantial effect on interstate commerce, he or she should not vote for this statute. it's not a, i don't think it's the mindset that, well, it's up to the court and, therefore we're not going to worry if we have an enumerated power or not. while widespread is not the right attitude and is the kind of attitude that i would warn against in this context. >> i would just like to say that

i thoroughly disagree -- [inaudible] in the supreme court's -- first of all the common cause has been widely used -- [inaudible] i just think which would from a testimony here today and we will hear later on is that this is now a very isolated population a small population. americans throughout every state -- [inaudible] who are part of a lifeblood of how this works.

[inaudible] this may impact your economic earnings, your ability to move freely between jobs i think is clearly within the purview of commerce. it is a fairly throw -- low threshold. [inaudible] i don't believe that there is this imaginary high bar when in fact, even if there was a high bar i think that i bought is easily cleared by the steps presented by the people here today and from the people who

experienced -- [inaudible] over the years. and clearly the history of the common cause statement because of the civil rights act will lead people to believe that -- [inaudible] was looking an abysmal hurdle is more the reference you made earlier, something we just -- [inaudible] we can make sure it is past in a way that is not -- no matter what you wanted it or try to change. >> next we have commissioner kirsanow. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to thank the panels for very splendid testimony. i would note, however that --

[inaudible] we've been doing that for least a dozen years now and i'm all chagrined that we have -- in terms of those who would support the law or federal statute and those would be skeptical about the use of congressional power on a nationwide basis. and i think whatever report or briefing we may have come and that's unfortunate and really affects legitimacy of that. my question would be to mr. clegg, from a practical perspective when we have employers to do with new statutes are so it's going to be some type of dislocation. sometimes those are very much merited and we will have to deal with them, and it may be merited in this particular case if enda was passed. given that with erosion over the course of time to the principles

at will employment, two questions. to what extent do you see enda or whatever iteration of enda we are at right now having an impact in the nature of at will employment? and second, how would this differ, if at all, from protections against race discrimination? >> well, one of the points that i make in my written testimony is that i'm afraid that and i think i repeated in my oral testimony, that i am afraid that we are moving away from the general presumption that we ought to have, that people should be able to use their private property the way that they want to use their private property. and that employers should be able to make personnel decisions

without interference from the government. this is something that goes along with out at will employment. and there should be a presumption against the government at any level stepping in and saying that well, you know, we know better than you whom you should hire and whom you should promote. and there should be an especially strong presumption against the federal government passing a law that second guesses employers in this regard. and one reason for that i think you alluded to this in your question is that laws become

reality in this area through litigation and regulation, and those are very expensive and distorted media. you know you don't just pass law and magically have the principle that you think is embodied in the law, become reality. it has to become reality through a lot of bureaucrats making a lot of decisions and bossing a lot of people around, and through a lot of lawyers and a lot of lawsuits and a lot of judges bossing a lot of people around. and this is a very unsatisfactory way to do business in an economy that is supposed to be based on freedom and free markets. i don't doubt that many times

employers do things that a majority of americans might find to be unfair or wrongheaded but it doesn't follow the mouse that, therefore, there should be a federal law passed saying that no employer shall ever do anything that is unfair or unwise. that law will have on.org are higher than any benefits that it would have. and it's the same situation here in this specific instance. i think that the problems that you will inevitably raise by, you know, passing a law that says that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity and, quote, gender identity

means the gender related identity appearance, or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individuals designated sex at birth. well, you know, you just know that lawyers and bureaucrats are going to have a great time interpreting language like that. here's another part. >> as a lawyer and speedy i do absolutely. i remember, this was that there housing act one time. and you all know about the fair housing act, too. we were in a meeting and he it was just what i described, mr. chairman. it was a bunch of us bureaucrats sitting around and we were writing regulations for, i don't remember if it was for the fair housing act or the housing part of the americans with disability act. but anyway we were there and we were deciding what the rules should be for employers when it

came to ramps in doorknobs and succulent terms and all kinds of stuff like that, and it was appalling. you know, none of us knows, at the table, knew anything about the business of how to build an apartment complex. why were we sitting around making up all these rules? it was just very scary. here's another part swedish. [inaudible] >> i didn't say that. i said i didn't think you had to be, put it bluntly, i don't think you have to be a black person in order to be able to sell pepsi to a black person. and this notion that only members of a particular group can effectively market to

members of that group, something i have a problem with. >> if i may not disabled person to figure out how a disabled person would be able to interact with their surroundings by it wasn't that we were not disabled. although that's also i think a fair point. the problem is we did know anything about building. that's the point i am making her. and the point coming in, likewise, we are not people, i mean we are not in the caregiving business, okay? the hypothetical about the caregiver and whether people might have preferences about who is going to pay them you know i think that those kinds of decisions should be made by people who are in the caregiving business, not by a bunch of bureaucrats. here's another part of of enda and you know you tell me whether this belongs in the u.s. code.

nothing in this act shall party with an employer from requiring an employee during the employees hours at work to it here 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 standard as applied for for the gender to whom the employee has transition or is transitioning. i don't think that that's the kind of micromanagement that congress should be putting into the u.s. code. to govern the grooming standards and dress standards that hundreds and thousands of

employers and hundreds of thousands of different workplaces have to implement every day. i think that's a decision that ought to be left to individual employers and businesses. >> you said earlier that people should be allowed to to get what they do with their own private property. let's let the market decide if we adhere to that they would still be people today who would consider property and wouldn't have fought a civil war to change what the market was. i think there is an important role that government has to play in the regulation of how we interact with one another and the rights that afford to individuals in the workplace. >> absolutely. i agree. you know i talk in my written testimony about that. i think that and commissioner kirsanow i think alluded to this also in his question, i think

that the situation that was presented and is presented by raised this commission in this country is special indifferent. i think that it makes all the sense in the world to draw distinctions between what was going on in this country with respect to racial discrimination and things like sexual orientation and gender identity. racial discrimination present an extraordinary situation justifying departure from the usual free market presumptions. it was widespread, blatant, and often governmentally -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. racial discrimination present an

extraordinary situation justifying departure from the usual free market presumptions. it was widespread blatantly blatant, and often governmentally codified and mandated. it was irrational and dictated at least in the 20th century by no non-trans or moral convictions. it was a historic problem national in scope which was clearly not susceptible to state local or private resolution. discrimination against homosexuals is sadly not in this league. >> i'm going -- >> i was wondering and anybody else on the panel would like to respond to mr. clegg's partial reading of enda and the dress code and things like that? >> i just have one quick response. i just two quick responses. the first is even as a lawyer i would love nothing more than it wouldwould to just us to build the said don't be mean, and that would be sufficient to treat people fairly and with a sense

of dignity and the recognition of their humanity. but obviously we don't have that in our history with raised this commission as a perfect example of that. by also think were not deal with a blank slate. we have a number of states that passed laws that prohibit this commission based on gender identity using something like the definition that mr. clegg read, and their hasn't been a huge flood of litigation nor has there been interpretations. what these laws do is they set a tone for how we think people should be treated on the job. and by existing, they stop the very discrimination that they're meant to redress. and in extreme cases, people that are free and have the ability to bring cases. the inability to answer the question, what kind of country do we want to live in? with a statute that says we want to live in a country where people of all sorts of people including people based on sexual orientation or gender live

free honored for they are unable to do their job to the highest of their ability and their ability is what matters not who they are. that seems to me to be a good thing for this country to do. >> anybody else? >> there's also a dramatic difference between regulating bad business decisions that impact only the employer. an employer who is foolish enough to require all their employees to wear uniforms. that's a bad upon the decision to the government should not be engaged in. it's radically different when we are talking about bad employment decisions that have negative lifelong consequences for the individuals that they're choosing to fire, refused to hire, or fail to promote. there should be in our laws a do no harm principle, and that's what nondiscrimination laws and employment attempt to do. to create a level playing field that ensures that employment decisions are made on the basis

of an employee's merits talents, skills and background rather than on who they are. >> the only thing i would add that i know this is a different context, not congress passing a law, but companies implement them their own nondiscrimination policy as they relate to sexual and asian and gender identity. i'm often frustrated not when people disagree with me because that happens all the time. i have to invoice or 12 i have and they just screw with the overtimeallthe time but that's okay. it's when there are these spurious arguments about why someone would disagree with me. that's what i find somewhat under the. so to go back to not again the legislative language that mr. clegg referenced but just the business practices that large, medium and small businesses today have adopted for good business reasons because it makes sound since lebanon this commission policy

based on under submission is on sexual orientation and gender identity. those business policies often mirror the language that mystically referenced in terms of the employment non-discrimination act. that is what it does is used to describe and to define gender identity in that case. and what we see is not businesses falling all over themselves for not being able to figure out what the policy means but rather providing a level playing field for all employees that those a lesbian bisexual and transgender doesn't just benefit them but benefits the entire culture of the large medium and small business. because it says to any employee that you are here to work and we're going to judge you on your skills and that's it. nothing irrelevant but your job performance. so i think again the employment

practices in the employment policies, those nondiscrimination's and there are private companies that they have to set their own plainfield for their own companies often mirror the language. and what we don't see in those companies from major fortune 100 companies to small business around this country is we don't see the kind of interpretations that mr. clegg says will happen. >> is that like a meritocracy? >> kind of something like that. >> the problem though is that to the extent that's true, you have undercut the argument for the necessity to pass this bill in the first place. and it's the rational thing for all companies to do the kind of things this bill requires, in the don't need to pass the bill. not passing it is not going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

discrimination is not going to be having a substantial effect on interstate commerce because companies are going to be taking steps to get rid of them anyway. i think there are going to be situations where taking sexual orientation into account is going to make sense. it may not be common. it may not be something that involves what most companies do. this is another problem with passing one size fits all federal legislation. it may be that people make airplanes have no reason to consider sexual orientation. but the people who were in the caregiving business might want to consider sexual orientation. it just depends. there's thousands of businesses out there, all different, and i don't think that we should be passing a federal one size fits all bill in that situation. >> if it seems to work --

>> i which is good to see some similar arguments to that were raised when president obama decided that he would consider lifting the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, one of our nation's largest employers. and people said they should be a one size fits all. we have men and women in foxholes together. this is not exactly we should have. we have people on submarines and sexual orientation that will absolutely undermine morale and unit cohesion, and we haven't seen that come to pass. >> we have several commissioners want to ask questions. commissioner heriot? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess i would ask about this notion whether not enda can be interpreted in unpredictable or counterproductive ways. you mentioned, for example that there some corporations have adopted very similar language but they get to interpret their own policies. they won't have that luxury if

there's a congressional enactment. the chairman just mentioned title vii is worked out well. i guess i would disagree with it. we need title vii but there lots of ways in which it has been interpreted in unpredictable and counterproductive ways, such as the difficulty now that employers have in taking into consideration felony convictions by job applicants, and i don't want that sort of problem to occur here in enda is passed. because of the what gender identity is defined in the current version, enda prohibits discrimination on the basis of quote gender related characteristics. can you give me some help on what that might mean? for example, in the price waterhouse case we have a plaintiff who argued that she had not been promoted because she was, i guess she was pushy as a female, and she said that characteristic would be regarded

as absurd mess in the mail. mail. so is assertiveness versus non-assertiveness, is that a gender related characteristic? what is a gender related characteristic? employers will look at that and they will want some guidance as to what that means. >> well, if a gender related means gender correlated, which i think is certainly one way you could interpret that then i agree that it is opening a real pandora's box. you could probably find social scientists or statisticians that define all kinds of characteristics that have some kind of correlation with the gender, with sex. and if all of those are not characteristics that you can't discriminate on the basis of

then you have made it very hard for employers to make decisions on the basis of any characteristics at all. i mean for instance, the nikkei an example. criminal behavior. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? i wouldn'tet me. criminal behavior. i think everybody would agree that men are more likely to commit crimes than women, okay? so is criminal behavior a gender related characteristic? well, certainly gender correlated characteristic. so it is now mean employers can't discriminate at all not just on the basis of disparate impact, but that it is disparate treatment now to discriminate against somebody on the basis that they have murdered their last employer. sounds like a reasonable

interpretation of the definition of gender identity to me. >> in other words, and reasonable example. >> tell us what -- >> i think that's ridiculous. what it means in terms of how we senate interpreter, what i understand, what understand that it means is it's very much along the price waterhouse. it is address. is presentation. it could be it could be interpreted as characteristic involved in the price waterhouse case, a woman that does not wear makeup can is not sufficiently feminine, a man that is -- >> is at the two sides of the same coin? is that not gender related characteristics that men tend to be more assertive in certain situations? women are sometimes less assertive? what does it mean? people don't always conform to gender. [laughter] >> i mean, i feel like that's what this is trying to get to

is that when one doesn't conform, i mean price waterhouse stands for the ferry, and if you like the language a gender related characteristics is about and something that, is that if someone either conforms to or does not conform to gender stereotypes, they will be protected. spent it does anything about gender stereotypes. this is not title vii. see, that's the problem. is assertiveness is something that is considered to be a more masculine characteristic and youyou know called this, let's assertiveness, something considered to be more feminine it looks to me that under, under enda it doesn't matter which person has the problem. a male job applicant would say i was rejected because i didn't conform to gender stereotype. i'm especially assertive, hyper masculine.

and yet there are lots of jobs for being hyper assertive would be a very bad thing. >> i understand the hypothetical but it's not something we've seen in states that have had similar language. >> on the other hand, title vii that it takes 50 years sometimes for these things to work themselves out. that's the thing about passing language. it becomes part of the law. it doesn't go away. >> we do have case interpretations of state law language that is similar to this that can be used to rebut a nonsense claim, for example because again, it's not the good news is this isn't a blake slater is not as if this is the first incursion into understand how we protect transgender or gender nonconforming employees. we do have a body of law in certain states and we do have several years at least of experience. >> title vii has been worked out but -- things that develop

quietly, sometimes 50 years after its passage. for example, right here we've been told that title vii can be used in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. nobody would've thought that in 1964. and maybe that's the right way you interpreted and maybe it's the wrong way but it's wrong to suggest that the language is not going to be a problem because it's not a problem now. that's not the way statutes work. >> i understand that but i think it's more important in your considerations to address what the real problem is now that we are trying to emulate a rate rather than -- >> i think that's the wrong approach. let's go with better language we have. we want good language, language that will not be abused in the future. we want it to only cover the things we wanted to cover. do we have that now? i would say no. i think we have language that is extremely vague. we don't know what gender related characteristics are going to mean. do we need to develop that

speaks we have over 20 years of experience. minnesota adopted a nondiscrimination law that includes both sex orientation and gender identity, more than 20 years ago. and the reason that you are seeing sex orientation and gender identity being incorporated into an interpretation of title vii is because the similarity between sextus commission and gender identity discrimination is bound up with one another. what is this commission on the basis of sex is also discrimination on the basis of gender identity. >> twenty years and a small state like minnesota is nothing. very, very, very small. when you multiply that over the population of the trend of america and you run it for 50 years there will be a lot of cases. we want to get this right the first time. >> we've also been looking at legislation for more than 20 years to address this discrimination in congress. there's been ongoing

conversations. this is not a new topic not a new idea. we've changed language over time, hashed things out based on best practices that we have seen in states. i mean nina supposed. they don't exist forever. while title vii has not been amended, certainly congress has gone added and changed of the statute to deal with changes in interpretation, that supreme court decisions, address additional statutes to rectify those situations. it is not a static and permanent for ever. >> again, as a former bureaucrat, i will point out when i was in this overrides division of the justice department, it was rare that we look at how analogous state statutes have been interpreted in state courts. i think matt commissioner heriot is right, that the notion that you're going to be able to fix

vague or ambiguous or problematic language in a federal bill by saying that here's how a statute that was kind of worried the same way was interpreted by state courts in minnesota is being way too optimistic about how this process works. >> well, i think what you are faced with is the respond to what you know and what we have expense with concord you respond to what you fear? and it is a body of law. there is experience with cases that have been brought under the law, and there is a problem that needs to be addressed. i am perfectly willing, given my own organization's position on enda, to have another, you know, go at language that could be more clear or could be more specific. but i feel like the language that you've got is based on

significant experience of individuals who have been involved in litigating and involved in these cases and involved in this area of law for several decades. >> i'm going to move on. if there's time at the end i will come back. they're still of the commission shall want to ask other questions. treachery spent ideas i won't ask mr. cook all the questions i had. but it will us to come it seems to me that your agreement with commissioner heriot regarding language and you're trying to craft a bill under which there will be no litigation or definitions. when, in fact, our entire judicial system continuously on a day-to-day basis issues decisions and looks at statutes and defines them every day. i mean statutes have been around 50 years or 100 years. i mean, not just discriminatory statutes. labor law, tort law, contract

law. i don't understand the objection i guess. i mean, the verbiage is verbiage and i understood when you are talking about redress and all that, it wasn't that difficult for me. but that's what we do have courts for. from your document you obviously don't trust courts. you think they are liberal. i guess the roberts court must be too liberal for you. my point being is don't you think that that's what lawyers and courts are for? i mean, the legislative process to be perfect is i mean they talk about stuffing a sausage. so i just ask you to define why why you think that we shouldn't litigate these things, and defined in overtime? >> well, i don't want to fix the statute. i don't want to pass the statute

at all. >> well, that i understand. >> and i don't think that reason that we have courts and lawyers is to figure out how companies ought to deal with employees who have this or that sexual orientation. i don't think that, i think that should be left to companies to do. i think there are some extraordinary situations where we have to have laws that tell employers are things that they can do and can't do. i think we have to have a federal statute that told employees that they could not discriminate based on race. but those instances are rare. >> are they protecting 5.4 million workers as opposed to the 600 complaints? who are we protecting, the 5.4 million lgbt workers or are

we just protecting the 667 complaints, or whatever the number was. >> the question is whether this legislation is going, whether the problem here has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. and actually the number of employer, of employees who are going to be protected by this law is all of them. because it's not just discrimination against, i mean sex orientation is described as being homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. so anybody can sue under this statute. if you have, if you are straight and you want a job in a gay bookstore and you don't get hired into think the reason is you are tired is because you are straight you've got a lawsuit too. i don't think you can really put it in terms of the number of

employees who are being protected from discrimination. potential to all employees are being protected. the question is whether the underlying problem here is one that has substantial effect on interstate commerce, and then whether there is whether circumstances are such that the only way to address this problem is through federal legislation to connecting the answer is to both those questions is no. >> clearly corporate america -- guidelines, that's a really enforceable by the employee in most cases. is it? >> why does that matter? i mean, if the problem is this commission against gays, if that's what's being asserted has, is the problem that a substantial affecting interstate commerce, if that problem is being alleviated by companies and acting unilateral policies and what difference does it make

whether there's a private right of action or not? >> it's not enforceable by the employee. you can have a rule and ignore the rule. spent you can have a law and ignore the law. >> but then there's a remedy. we talk about remedies in the law but we don't just talk about rules. spent my point is that there's slippage between both instances. just because you're a statute doesn't mean magically that you not conduct any more discrimination. even if you can bring lawsuits. and i don't know, different companies may structure these guidelines differently. if you were a company you could structure it so that is our policy, if you're an individual and you think that your supervisor is a scrimmage against you based on sexual orientation, you can file a complaint with the h.r. department. things simmer to that are done in this area already -- similar.

>> okay, thank you. >> sexual harassment, if you are sexually harassed by your immediate supervisor and you can, most companies now have mechanisms where you can complain about that to some person other than your immediate supervisor. so i think if a company wanted to be could set up protections against sexual orientation discrimination the same way. >> many of those cases still end up in the courts. >> commissioner kladney, any more questions? >> i pass. >> ms. warbelow, and others who care to comment it's been

asserted by some who oppose uniform federal standards that the adoption of same will lead to sexual harassment in the workplace as opposed to redress sexual harassment in the workplace. is it your interpretation of this proposed federal standard that this would be the case? and if you would comment as well on the issue of whether or not the existence of a uniform federal standard would prevent

persons with a particular religious point of view from expressing that point of view in the workplace because such a thing within become defined ipso facto as creating a hostile work environment, as some of others have argued. >> so there's actually no evidence despite the fact that we have 21 states and the district of columbia that have not this commission laws on the books that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex orientation. but has led to any rise in sexual harassment. sexual harassment is a very real and pervasive problem. it is something that disproportionately affects women in the workplace. i did that come prepared with those statistics in terms of what we're discussing today that would be happy to get those to you. to the extent, however, that somebody was straight is

experiencing sexual harassment from a colleague who is a gay, lesbian or bisexual, they have remedy currently under title vii in any addition of protection on the basis of sex orientation, as mr. clay pointed out covers not only lgbt people astray people as well. so those individuals would have a remedy not only through their employer also in the courts if it were a persistent problem. >> any sexual harassment that isn't otherwise being addressed through existing law, is that correct? >> that's correct. the supreme court has addressed the issue of sexual harassment between people of the same sex more than two decades ago, and though the remedies that exist currently for individuals and this will not change. >> so the same sex or opposite sex are, if they are gay or

straight, adoption of a uniform federal standard have no impact, is that correct? >> that's correct. with regards to sexual harassment, which i want to say is all different from harassment on the basis of sex orientation. so someone was engaging in behavior based on -- and sexual terms and sexual nature as opposed to an employee who was harassing another employee who is gay and using derogatory terms for someone who's gay and then had to drive them out of the workplace. >> into the use of derogatory terms that would be addressed if we were to adopt the uniform federal standard? >> that's right. so uniform federal standard will erase at least give people remedy to address harassment that is paid on the sexual orientation of the individual

rather than harassment that is just sexual in nature and happened to occur between two people who are of the same sex. >> so calling someone a diet or fact in the workplace? >> that's what this law would allow people to have a remedy for if the employer refused to address. >> could you talk about in the relationship, if any between that and the assertion that persons of a particular deeply held religious belief would be have their first amendment rights circumscribed in these workplaces if the were the adoption uniform federal standard protect lgbt people in the workplace? >> so religious employees already protected under title vii. and have the ability to make

assertions about their religious beliefs in the workplace. i will say that there is a huge difference between asserted within the workplace and employs opposition to marriage for same-sex couples, or a belief that homosexuality is immoral and calling someone dyke or fag. like we can make distinctions between what is assertion of a person's religious belief and what is harassing behavior. now, certainly if an individual post passage of a national federal standard for nondiscrimination in the workplace were to target and lgbt individual to enter their workspace on a daily basis or routine basis and say to them i think you're going to burn in hell because you are gay that would create liability for the employer and the employee would

have ability to sue for harassment and discrimination in the workplace. but i think that we can draw and certainly challenge the billy to make distinctions between what is an individual assertion of the religious beliefs and where that steps into harassment and abuse of another employee. we see this in the context of facts as well. we do have many individuals through pashtuns throughout the country to have some severely held religious belief that women don't belong in the workforce that only certain types of activities are appropriate for women, that men deserve higher pay because they are head of household. we allow for religious individuals to express those views in limited ways in the workplace. but when they are targeting an individual or they are acting in such a way such as actual providing women lower salaries,

that result in harm to the individual, that is where we draw distinctions. >> commissioner achtenberg, if i could just note on pages seven and eight at of my toes when i talk to some of the ways that i think enda would complicate the sexual harassment issues. and the two appendices i have are pieces by the competitive enterprise institute and a professor at some of the first amendment issues. >> i know you did and i thoroughly reject those statements. thank you very much. >> that everybody else knows that, too. >> thank you. commissioner narasaki? >> i join commissioner achtenberg for her rejection. spent add me as well then, for the record. >> why are we having a briefing? >> because there are some actual series issues about how you best

implement this, and as you and i have debated on many issues, there are a lot of gray areas that even if you disagree on something, hopefully we can find some common ground to improve the entire framework. i think this is, in fact, a very important enterprise. i wanted to start by addressing commissioner kirsanow's concern regarding the makeup of the panel. i believe that staff did invite a broad range of you to be present in fact all commissioners are invited to present ideas for staff of people to be invited and to help staff actually recruit people, and, of course, we ask many groups are interested in stakeholders who may be watching on air to know that they have, that they have is it 30 days?

>> yes. >> my mic won't stay on. >> use this one for now. >> that we have 30 days for people to submit written comments. so if you are out there and have a different view and you want to make sure that the commissioners and staff take that into account, please avail yourself of that opportunity. second, i know that they they're joking about this but am concerned about disparagement of the dedicated staff of civil rights agencies as being nothing but ignorant bureaucrats. many come with a lot of life experience. and, of course, also the process of consultation when we do regulations, and we propose new policies that take into account input from employers and affected communities. i do want to leave the general public with the view that somehow bureaucrats put together

laws really are not based on any kind of reality. that is far from the case. as mr. clay the nose, doing regulation is a very long and -- mr. clegg knows, that is a painful process. nothing could be more important than the employment context. so, roger, i'm just curious because your argument against covering lgbtq people seems to also apply to religious commission. so is it the view of the center for equal opportunity that title vii should, in fact not be trying to stop discrimination based on religion? >> no. i'm not sure how that follows.

no. the center -- >> because you argued that the lgbtq status is not -- which i don't necessarily agree with. you -- >> wait a minute. i did not say that. >> welcome in your comparison with lgbtq status and race, you try to draw a distinction about how race is very different, but title vii covers more than raise. on just trying to understand the boundaries of your argument because you tried to make the point that we should not burden -- that's what i am asking you. >> no. >> please clarify where i've i have gone astray. >> the center for equal opportunity does not object to the fact that title vii makes it illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion.

and i don't see how there's an inconsistency between thinking that that kind of prohibition is acceptable in saying that we should not add an additional prohibition against discrimination on the base of sexual orientation and gender identity. the reasons that i give for being opposed to enda i think would, would not apply to discrimination on the basis of religion. >> i mean i want to be clear that i think it's appropriate to cover religion. and the reason i'm asking you is because you put enormous trust in markets, and free markets to do the right thing, and that

you've made the statement that it's very clear in the case of race to you why title vii is important to end up trying, and the reasons you give are because of the long history that we've had with discrimination which we've also had against lgbtq people about but you make the are you a raise is not an immutable characteristic were as it's more difficult -- >> i don't think i use the word immutable in my testimony. >> that's how i interpreted it. i'm just trying to interpret why race is different from lgbtq status and also but yet the base of which is different is that same reasons you could look at religion. you know, in terms of the smallness of the numbers it will impact whether not government should be involved in the. i do want to make sure i understood where you were coming from. i wanted to ask you weather,

weather, if enda were to happen so we've raised the issue of bona fide occupational qualifications, right? >> not in those terms, no, i did not. >> i thought you did in your testimony? >> i don't think so. i'm happy to talk about it. i agree with the point that i think it was in the previous panel was discussing the fact that there is no -- in a enda. i am for me without. >> maybe it was in the attachment to your testimony. okay, let me just ask the question. do you feel like there should be -- >> again, i am not particularly interested in fine tuning enda to make it a better statue because i don't i think it is a bad statue from beginning to him but from beginning to end but i do think of it as authority to pass it. i suppose that if enda were path i want to be -- have it any.

yes. >> what would that look like to you? >> i think it would be parallel to the oft language in title vii. which follows the prohibition in title vii of discrimination on where it lists the kinds of discrimination that are illegal but then it says that -- this is 703, and this is that there's an exception where religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification regionallregionall y and necessary to the operation of that particular business or

enterprise. >> and what kind of religious accommodation, if any would you think would be appropriate? >> again, it would not be limited to religious context. i think there could be other instances where they would need to be a bfoq fortress commission on base of sexual orientation. i described some of those in my oral testimony. for instance, if you had a caregiver, and the customer who was being given a caregiver said, you know, i'm really not comfortable, this is very intimate situation to i'm going to be getting a bath from this person. i don't want a caregiver to be somebody that a think is going where sex is going to be an issue, where there is any

likelihood of sexual attraction by the individual to me. and so i am a straight male therefore, i don't want women to be, basically i want a straight male today for me. and i don't want women to bathe me because, you know for privacy reasons and also because i don't want them to be attracted. and i don't want a gay man to bathe me either. no, there's nothing religious about that -- >> can't actually, do you have aging parents? >> yes. >> i have a very aging mother, and if we do with all the people that she did want touching her she would get no help at all. >> do you think they should be a federal law that requires your mother to have to hire whom ever -- >> my question is, which is if someone says it's very

intimate that gee, i don't want a white person touching me, which if you like that was okay? >> well, that's a good question. and, of course, there is no bfoq for race in title vii. even if there is no bfoq the race it's because the people at the time the statute was written were afraid that that exception was the fault of the rule. ..

permit a transgender man to be a prison guard. >> for the record to find what you mean by transgender man. >> and individual assigned female at birth and transitioned to mail at some point later. >> just to clarify for the record. >> people transition in multiple ways. but frequently individuals who are transgender take hormones consistent with the sex that they have transitioned to and

some have surgeries on their bodies to conform to the new presentation. >> some you would consider transgender would not have surgery and would still have the biological equipment they had afterbirth? took their fight for the record you would be talking about a transgender man maybe someone with female body that has taken hormones is that correct? >> they may have had some surgery to have their bodies changed so that all of their genitalia appears male. it very is a little different individual and in terms of medical best practices at its

best for individuals to determine what level is right for them. would you include someone that has not had surgery but dresses and otherwise identifies with the sex they were not born with. >> i would ask that you don't ask anymore questions because not ask any more questions because we are already over the panel time. >> we would support a very limited -- i believe i have answered. they have neither hormonal treatment or surgical treatment about in other ways they have expressed the identity that is different from the one they were born with. >> we understand that to be gender nonconforming but

different individuals to identify a little bit differently. >> can i get my question done? >> we would support a very limited. it doesn't seem there is an appropriate area in which someone should be rejected based on their orientation or identity from engaging in the employment context. in the very narrow instance even with the facts there are very few. >> and what about religious accommodation? without any exemption or a connotation of religious views. >> so as i put in my testimony,

the standard is an ideal model and allows religious employers so those that are religious organizations to provide preference to individuals of their own religion in addition we have very robust case law around on a ministerial for the religious organizations as well. >> i think it is something that mr. clay said earlier i wasn't quite sure whether the comment meant to suggest -- >> i didn't say that. whether the comment was meant to suggest that someone's sexual orientation had something to do with it in the ability or inability to work with

adolescents. i think the medical profession and those that work with their pediatricians to be association to the medical association and all that. >> all i was saying is that straight men are more likely to be attracted to atlas and females then gay man and that straight and gay men are more likely to be attracted to adolescent males damned straight men are. >> well, i think we are past the issue at that point. but thank you all very robust panel. we learned a lot about the preferences for individual care. thank you all and we are going to take a break now for lunch. we will return at 1 p.m. with panel number three.

>> if you missed any of this you can find it in our video library c-span.org. both chambers of commerce are in and of the hill reports reports senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is not going to move forward on the nomination of florida when for attorney general until democrats cooperate on human trafficking bill created a thin threatening to block it because if they provision being used for abortion. the senate is taking up that hill again today when they return at 3:00 eastern. we will be considering executive nominations for the department of transportation and commerce and tonight at about 6 p.m. eastern we expect to see senator tom harkin of arkansas.

>> host: thank you for joining us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> so continuing here in washington about iran how do you see things taking shape in town here this week as the negotiations continue in europe? >> guest: of course the letters started a firestorm that hasn't gone away. everybody is still talking about

it. going back to the republican side there are senators that find it seemed to be regretting it or at least walking back some of the support from the leaders and the question is how is this going to affect legislation on the floor and of course this goes back to the sanctions debate and this was always a bipartisan push. there were democrats on both sides of the aisle who want tougher sanctions into the or even ignoring the calls not to use the legislation while he was still negotiating. that all changed when they met benjamin netanyahu to speak. the politics of that invitation got involved especially in a senate committee democrats said wait a minute if it's going to become so political we will start pushing for the sanctions to allow the space for obama to negotiate. and mitch mcconnell was saying he wants to bring something to the floor in the middle of the debate over human trafficking

entity loretta lynch nomination for the attorney general so we don't know when that would have time to come to the floor, but there is a conflict now between the sanctions to negotiate what happened and it's become a very partisan issue. >> host: you mentioned loretta lynch. we thought the debate was coming at some point this week but may be the majority leader changed course over the weekend and one of the headline stands in the way of the pic for the attorney general. first of all our these issues related in any way? >> guest: the fight over human trafficking there was another one that was a bipartisan to sell through the judiciary committee last week and everybody thought they were coming to the floor to be a done deal and they could move on to the loretta lynn. what happened is the democrats,

"-close-double-quote discovered a antiabortion provision in the republican bill that wasn't in the house until they were caught off guard and republicans say it was in there all along all you have to do is read the thing so there is that kind of thing happening. but it doesn't seem like it has the 60 votes that will be needed to pass it in the senate. he went on tv and said we are not going to move until we break the impact over the human trafficking bill. so are they just going to sit on it for a little while and hope they get enough to pass it we don't know how that is going to play out. but tuesday morning as the cloture vote on the human trafficking bill. >> host: how are the votes lining up can you tell at this point?

>> guest: the expectation is that she will be approved. they voted for the added committee that is a pretty good sign but the fact is there's a lot of republican opposition that isn't good for her or the white house and last month she was asked by a lot of republicans whether or not she supported the executive actions on the deportation and immigration and she said very exclusively that she supported it and so the backlash has been pretty severe so we do anticipate anticipate a lot of republican votes but probably not enough to become the next attorney general for the question of when. >> host: let's talk about the budget because we are reading that they are going to lay out the budget priorities this week in the annual budget resolution. what are we looking forward to

hear? >> guest: this will be the big fight for the first time in eight years over the course of the time they did over democrats for not putting forward annual budgets for the talking point on the campaign trail and so a lot of pressure not only to bring the bill that balances the budget over a decade to the floor but to pass it didn't unite it with the house passed bill. in 2011 they passed the budget control act that set very specific caps on spending on the domestic and defense spending and there is a deficit reduction group on the republican side that really wants to keep them in place. it's important for the health of the economy and then you have the defense talks who want a lot of money for the military. and so that battle is going to happen internally in the republican party. those people that want to lift

the sequestration caps and are the video with democrats in order to do so they want to watch the domestic spending for other programs which they have a lot of conservatives in the republican party so that is one thing to look for. the other thing is house republicans in the past have had control for the past four years unlike the senate so they put forward these types of proposals. paul ryan the chairman of the budget can be made very specifics in the entitlement prevents medicare and medicaid and that was part of the messaging strategy. they have the various committees that have jurisdiction over the programs to make the specific cuts and so i think that you will see a little bit of a division of how they go about proposing to cut.

this is a bill on the appropriations bill so we will see what happens but that is going to be the big fight i think they speak, the start of the big fight. >> host: congressional reporter for the help angst for the update. appreciate it. >> guest: thank you for having me. appreciate it. >> what i am proposing that we do is overhaul the lifeline program and make it conquer and and and sync with the information to challenge the providers to give more to their consumers in the prices and opportunities that have gone down and that have been more for

the rest of us it should be for the lifeline consumers to get those providers out of the certification business. that has been the number one problem that we have seen with not so positive headlines it is a vulnerability in the system. >> before the senate gavels and we will take a look at the senate commerce committee hearing last week on establishing the first wireless public safety network. board members are looking for input from the public on how the system would work for the states that opt out of the network. under the law by u.s. states and territories can either be part of first met or create their own networks as long as the need for standards. >> the hearing will come to order. we convened this warning to conduct oversight of the first responder network of authority. in 2012 congress established the

mandate to deploy an interoperable wireless broadband network for the first responders. three years later the committee is revisiting this for the first time since we passed the spectrum act. we will examine the progress and challenges first met is encountering as it moves forward with building the 20th century communication platform for the emergency personnel. the title of the hearing asks whether we are any closer today to having the 21st century public network. of course in the literal sense, we are. it was enacted in first met has been stood up in consultations with the states and it's on the verge of releasing its highly anticipated draft request for proposals. but in other ways we are still a very long way away from having an interoperable public safety network. there are many things that can go wrong unless decisions are made right now. for example, the forthcoming rfp will give a sense of whether the network can be built to meet the

needs and expectations of a diverse audience of emergency responders in a cost-effective way that secures first match net for future generations. first met must work diligently to make a self funding funding entity because frankly we are not in a budget environment that can tolerate spending more than the 7 billion taxpayer dollars it's already been committed in the network. we are confronted with pressing questions due to the complexity of establishing the communication system. stakeholders including my home state and south dakota have questions about what it will mean for them. there are legitimate concerns how much network access will cost local police and fire departments already dealing with budgets and the network is competitive and cost perspective and many wonder whether it will be better than what first responders correctly use. i know first net is aware of these issues and i would encourage them to be sensitive to the challenges of local communities. last year i asked at the gal to examine the progress in building network. in just a few minutes we will hear from mr. goldstein about

the findings and concerns they raised. i hope and ask that first met will take the criticism to the approach of building the network. specifically i urge first net to assess the risk they may face in pursuing the objectives. i would also ask firstnet to implement a detailed data analysis plan that builds upon the valuable lessons learned from the early builder projects. i share the view that without such a plan firstnet might not take full advantage of the sizable federal investment has already been made in these early building projects. the commerce department inspector general's a recently released a report from firstnet that on firstnet that raised issues concerning the ethics and procurement practices and i look forward to hearing what lessons he firstnet has learned. the department of commerce also defines itself at a crucial stage in the process. the department should ask itself whether it is being the best part or it can be facilitating development of the public safety

network that's more secure. the unique position as an independent authority within the department comes with some risk. so much so that one commentator recently asked whether it is on the path to becoming the next healthcare .gov. the obamacare website both known for its rollout thanks to the mismanagement but only the challenge of setting up the network. i should say only the challenge of setting up the network is arguably many times greater. i strongly encourage the department to do everything it can to learn from the mistakes of healthcare .gov. have questions we need to answer for this endeavor to be successful. for instance to what degree will emergency responders wish to join the network affiliated in the government and what is the value to why your list carriers when public safety has priority access. who exactly will be permitted to use the public safety network and as the committee proceeds with oversight i will focus particularly on whether the high quality useful network can be

offered to first responders in rural america. they will leave large pockets of america uncovered were served by second grade solutions. we have a panel with us and i expect the testimony will provide the committee with important insight into issues i've raised. the senator from florida for his opening remarks. >> i know the committee members would like to hear my tones but i would like to hear the witnesses so i i went for my remarks for the record. >> we will start by introducing the distinguished panel today. first we have mr. andrews that serves as deputy secretary at the department of commerce. he will be filing mr. keith bryant at the oklahoma fire department and the chairman of the board of the international association of fire chiefs.

mr. goldstein serves as the director of the physical infrastructure issues of the at the government accountability office as reference earlier and serves as the chairwoman of the network authority also known at firstnet and finally mr. todd zinser serves as the inspector to the department of commerce. so we will start on my left and you're right with mr. andrews and proceed if you can to keep your comments can't find as closely to five minutes as possible and then we will proceed with questions. >> good morning chairman, ranking member nelson and members of the committee thank you for inviting me to hear today to testify. i feel a special affinity for firstnet because i actually worked on the staff of the committee for senator rockefeller and hutchison originally conceived of the first net and as we know this arose as a result of the week of the 9/11 attacks when the work of the brave responders was impaired by the problems with

communications. we at the department are proud of the role or helping to stand up and support this important program. this is a difficult mission. but we are confident they are making strong progress towards meeting its goals. the nationwide first responder network the key recommendation of the 9/11 commission commission will enhance public safety communications across these and jurisdiction. it's an independent authority in of the national communications and information administration. it's a unique federal entity in one of the initiatives under the department portfolio. it is a startup for the challenge of standing up the self-sustaining world-class network within the rules and regulations of the federal government. suffice it to say that has its challenges. the department actively supports and overseas firstnet. senior leadership from the department and firstnet me on a

regular basis to discuss the status of the project milestones and potential risks. now that firstnet is maturing it depends less on the staff and the day-to-day activities. however we continue to offer support. we are personally engaged on firstnet and she has leveraged her experience in creating and running companies to help on firstnet. we led a collaborative process through which they developed a strategic roadmap and cost model validated by outside independent experts. the department provide certain legal procurement human resources and administrative support to firstnet where it does not otherwise have its own resources or direct authority. in doing so we seek to streamline and expedite federal processes. we work with firstnet nonstatutory compliance, internal controls, financial management systems and annual independent audit.

ntia also implements the grant program that supports consultations with state regional, tribal and local jurisdictions. in december the department inspector general issued a report regarding the management of certain disclosure reports and the monitoring of certain firstnet contracts. the department appreciates the inspector general's efforts and takes the matter seriously. we concurred with the recommendations and we've taken a number of steps to address them. it's important to emphasize that the report focused on firstnet's early operations and to highlight the department's efforts on these matters. as congress recognized firstnet ain't public and private sector board members with deep technical expertise and experience in wireless broadband communications, however to give such private sector board members it was likely that they would retain interest in affiliations with the industry thus creating the need to consider carefully potential conflicts of interest.

the department anticipated and addressed this issue through a robust ethics program that worked closely with the board members to regarding their employment and financial interest, even before they entered government service. although some administrative requirements may not have been fulfilled board members made the necessary material disclosures notably the inspector general's report did not identify any violation of the conflict of interest law or the circumstances to effect the first net decision-making. it resulted in the valuable work product that has been critical to the rapid establishment of the organization and to your point, earlier about getting this stood out as quickly as we can. to be clear the administrative errors were made into the department takes this seriously. for example, we are implementing the increased review of the disclosure reports increasing the level of the potential conflict of interest arising from acquisitions and working to

ensure that employees receive appropriate ethical training. firstnet has grown significantly and it's now in a stronger position to exercise its own governance and oversight to provide clear direction and structure for the organization. i also think it's important that we emphasized the appreciation to the private sector board members. these citizens are making significant sacrifices for important goals to do it the right way. firstnet has made a strong progress. it's achieving its milestones according to the strategic roadmap related to the state consultations, draft request for the network proposals and public notice and comment. in addition firstnet is fully funded into the proceeds in a recent auction. this coming year will be critical as it transitions to a new phase focused on developing and deploying its network. to be clearly understand the mission clear we understand the mission will not be fulfilled quickly. we want them to set ambitious but realistic time frames and deadlines and we understand that

some internal deadlines have not and will not be met. none of that undermines the hard work being performed by this terrific team and place at firstnet. creating a public safety wireless network is a major undertaking. we take our response body for the project very seriously, and we will continue to help ensure that it succeeds in its important mission to rethink you begin for the opportunity to discuss firstnet's challenges and as you can see we are making strong progress towards the goals. i appreciate the time and welcome your questions. >> thank you mr. andrews. chief bryant. >> ranking member nelson and members of the committee come at the international association of the fire chief represents more than 11,000 in the fire medical services. i would like to think the committee for the opportunity to provide public safety perspective on the need for the nationwide public safety broadband network and to examine

the progress made by the first responder network authority or firstnet. the goal of building the nationwide public safety broadband network to meet the needs of the first responders is a matter of critical importance for public safety while the task will not be easy they believe it is developing the leadership of the staff and support from the state public safety and other key stakeholders required to take the network a reality. as a fire chief and firefighter responded to the numerous events including natural disasters. i know firsthand the benefits that the first network stands to offer in terms of improving the communications, coordination and situational awareness during the emergency response operations. just as the smart phones changed the applications ultimately will change the way the local fire and emergency service department

operate. in terms of dalia operations america's firefighters deal with an increasingly complex environment that requires increasing amounts of information and data to keep citizens safe. it will like it possible to gain quick access to the tools and applications that provide location data and other vital information for firefighting. it will enable the exchange of real-time data on the ground to assist the commanders with operational decision-making and maximize the search and rescue effectiveness. they will make a change in how the emergency medical services practice. in the field it is important to arrive at the patient location and transport him or her at the hospital within minutes. the critical critical decision making and real-time decision-making and real-time in the field which will help