it's better for our businesses. it's better for our country. thank you for your courage. >> senator, thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i hope we can move this bill. >> i hope so. thank you. i would want to insert a letter we received just today into the record from nearly corporations supporting this bill. 90 different corporations that are listed here. i just want you to know that general mills is on the list. companies all over america. i want that to be inserted into the record. i also just want to follow up a bit on what senator franken said about minnesota. iowa in 2007, 14 years later

after minnesota, i hate to admit that, but in 2007 we passed our employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for all businesses with four or more employees. prior to the passage, several cities had company policies protecting gay and lesbian employers from discrimination. iowa shows concerns are not born out by actual experience. one ocht complaints is about costly litigation. last year of 1,539 total employment discrimination complaints to the iowa civil rights commission, only 74, 4.8% were based on sexual orientation and only 14.9% were based on

gender identity. again, not an explosion of lawsuits based upon a law that we just passed in 2007. i think, again, that bears out that this idea there's going to be an explosion of litigation just isn't born out by our experience in iowa. what do you say to those that say identititle vii is enough? we've heard that criticism that this bill is an attack on the

religious liberties. do you think the religious liberty of religious organizations is at risk umpbds this bill and is title vii enough to address the problem? >> thank you. let me answer as to whether title vii is enough to address the problem. i think the answer to that is clearly no. there's some case law in some circuits that apply title vii under sex stereotyping theory in certain cases involving lgbt individuals. as you also see in the circuits that have applied that case law, the courts work hard to draw a line between discrimination that is based on sex stereotypes versus gerunve versus gender identity. this leads to great deal of uncertainty. this means that even in some of the circuits court where lgbt

plaintiffs have won some case, they end up loses others. in most of the circuits they have not moved forward to that extent. there's a need for a comprehensive clear federal standard that applies across the country. he does describe the stages of the analysis under title vii. he said there's two stages. first, is this entity the kind of entity that gets the religious exemption and is it based on discrimination. there's only one stage. the first stage to that analysis. that's why none of the problems are really problems with this

bill. the only question is is this entity the kind of religious institution that would get an exemption from discrimination under hit it will title vii? once we decide it's a religious corporation or society, for example, that's the end of the matter. that institution gets an exemption, period, from discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. now, there's a very, very extensived with of case law determining what is a religious corporation association or society. what are the organizations that are covered by title vii religious exemption. like any legal test, there's cases at the edges, but employers have over 40 years of case law to enable them to

understand what is covered, and what is not covered here. there is no particular reason to believe that there would be any difficulty in understanding what the scope of the application of that exemption will be. >> may i respond? >> yes. i was going to turn to you for a response. >> i think we're down, and i'm glad to hear that we're down to what i think is the analytical nut of difference, in my opinion from professor. he believes that at least the intent and perhaps the letter applies to prong number one in terms of what type of organization it is in its religious structure, and that's it. once you analyze that under title vii and you're in or out. the reason i think it's not an

appropriate evaluation is because if you look at section 6, it says this act won't apply to those organizations, religious corporations and so forts that are exempted from the religious discrimination provisions. in order to be exempted from religious discrimination provisions, you must have both prongs, not one. the second prong is the problem prong because it deals with a decision by a religious employer about the religion of the employee. there is a case that i cited in my written testimony. it was relatively recent involving a employee who was homosexual and he was criticized. the claim was a sex stereotyping claim because he didn't declare himself to be homosexual until

later. he was criticized as an apparent or spooefred homosexual. the objections he cites are religious. the third circuit said this is not a case of religious discrimination. it's case of sex discrimination. that's what i'm afraid will happen. >> mr. chairman, might i respond? >> not getting into this. >> what section 6 says is this shall not apply. if it is the kind of corporation institution of learning that's exempt from religious discrimination provisions of title vii by this text, it's exempt from the sexual orientation and gender identity

prohibitions. period. there's nothing in here that says you have to decide whether the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is religion or sex. that was the very first part of your question to me. under title vii the only way that people who are lgbt are protected is by bringing claims under sex discrimination. this statute would avoid that. it's a separate cause of action for gender identity an sexual orientation discrimination. it would exempt any constitution that is covered by the religious under title vii period. >> if we go to the real world and postulate a scenario where

say you have a christian bookstore, a large one, so it comes within title vii you have an employee that was hire and he was hired in as a man and comes in dressed as a woman and say i'm in a gender transition and the owner of the christian bookstore, let's say it's for profit, but it's a christian bookstore says that's inconsistent with our religious and the person is terminate, would what happen? the employee would say when i signed on, i agreed with your christian base. it's just that you and i differ on this issue of gender identity. the employer says this is a substantial wuburden on us. the judge has to decide is there case of religious discrimination, in which i agree, and in that situation the

christian bookstore would get a pass or is it a case of sex discrimination, in which case they wouldn't get pass. let me also say if it's a for profit bookstore, they probably will not get any kind of a pass because of the way in which the courts have treated for profit as opposed no nonprofit religious organizations. thank you. >> i'm resisting the urge to jump into this as a lawyer. these debates can go on. i think this is a very technical part of the bill. this is technical. there's always these kind of technical aspects of legislation. you're the author of this bill, the sponsor of it. i would ask if you have any view on this yourself since you're the lead sponsor. if you want to address yourself, if not, that's fine. we'll move on.

>> i think it's in line with all of the legal efforts to create significant and broad exemptions. >> let's go, i have then since, i do have a letter for the report now at this point from, i don't know how many of religious organizations in support of s8-11. i'll ask that be put into record at this point. >> 37 religious organizations are on that list. thank you for putting it into the record. i would like to also enter into record a list of nonprofit organizations. 88 nonprofit organizations that have sent a letter to us in support of the bill.

this is title co-sponsor the nondiscrimination act letter. when oregon was wrestling with its nondiscrimination act, which by the way was much broader than employment applied to all retail activity, housing, restaurants, services of every kind, we wrestled with defining the boundaries of religious exemption. it seemed to have work well and i've never heard a single complaint in the five years since. have you taken a look at oregon's religious exemption and the experience on the ground or any other states that have been essentially down this path already. >> specifically, i haven't with regard to oregon. my experience has been that well

intentioned discrimination laws are often passed without understanding the difficulty that the courts often complain about when they step into areas of religion. on the one hand, the judge is handicap from going into areas of religious belief by the establishment clause. on the other hand they are required to do so because of the language of exemption. they had not adequately provided protection for the christian school. they were sued. had to go to the supreme court version of their court system in maryland, court of appeals to get redress. they did establish the free exercise of religion rights at the school only after three or four years of litigation. it's important, i think, to realize what a difficult area this is. i will look at oregon's because i'm intrigued by the history that you recount.

thanks, senator. >> have you had the opportunity to look at any of the individual states that have wrestled with this challenge of identifying the religious exemption? are there any insights to be gained from the state's experiences? >> i think there are insights to be gained. i had because in the previous hearing on this bill two years ago because you had referred to the discussions about religious exemption. my sense is looking at it sort of diving in is very much as your sense of a public official in the state of oregon that there hasn't been the kind of problem in implementing it. i think we see that elsewhere. i think in this bill in particular the real advantage is this bill simply incorporates a religious exemption that has been upheld by the supreme court

so we know that the constitutional lines that are drawn have already been drawn appropriately and has several decades of experience behind it. this is not something where we're going to have to create four years of litigation in order to figure out what it means. it's clear what it means. i think that is a real advantage that we can get in a federal law maybe over a state law. >> thank you. you mentioned that the aclu has been concerned about this being too broad. do you want to expand on that? >> i think you would probably talk to someone from the aclu about what their concern is, but my sense is the concern is this. it's sort of the flip side. under title vii, the religious exemption applies only to discrimination taken for religious reasons.

under this bill, the religious exemption would apply to any discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity by an entity covered by the religious exemption under title vii whether or not it's taken for religious reasons. it could be a college or university that discriminations just because of bias. that would be exempted by this bill. in this sense, in some ways, the religious exemption operated more broadly than the religious exemption under title vi vii. it doesn't operate more narrowly. >> it give a list. i assume the word religious applies to all these

corporations with respect to employment of individuals to perform work. it's that first part of the phrase that's saying any of these religious corporation, association, educational institutions or societies are all exempted. that's why this is considerise broad. >> thank you. i want to conclude my thoughts by saying if that's what we're down to is wrestle to the exact legal language in the boundaries of religious exemption, then we're within reach of having a national frame work that ends discrimination because state after state has wrestled with these boundaries and worked it out. i do think that the way this particular statute is crafted has been to address a major concern, which is to create a new list of uncertainties but by

basing the language on a path that is now 48 years old since this language was first introduced into law so the definitions and the courts have worked it over time and time again. there's such an enormous case history is the soundest found, the most thorough and thoughtful foundation we could have for exthe ee extendsing protection in terms of giving assurance the definitions are well-examined and well worked. let us not lose sight as we wrestle over causes that raise questions about what is a religious association. the courts ahave worked that ou. let us not lose sight that each and every day american citizens are discriminated against in

their employment or their potential employment in ways that has a profound impact on their opportunity to fully live their lives, to fully contribute, to fully fully purs happiness, in other words, to do all that they can be, all that they are, which is a benefit to them, and a benefit to our nation. and this discrimination is absolutely wrong. it is morally wrong, and we must end it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator murphy. for your sponsorship of the bill and your strong support for it. i would ask if anyone has any last thing they want to add before i close down the hearing. any last thing they want to bring up. we'll hold the record open for ten days. senator frank had some additional questions he wanted to ask. we'll hold the record open for ten days for further insertions

or for questions that other members of the committee might have. i'll close by saying that i thank you all for being here. i just echo what senator murphy said. this is an issue we have to confront as a nation, and we have to get over it and move on. again, i want to be as protective as anyone of religious liberty in the country, but i also remind you that in 1964 when we passed the civil rights act, arguments were made that this would violate the religious liberty of employers. that bans discrimination on the basis of race. 1964 civil rights act. violate the religious liberty.

if we said we couldn't discriminate against african-americans in our society. so we've been down that road before. and quite frankly, to echo what senator murphy said, this has no place in our society. we wish we had done this a long time ago. people should be judged on the basis of the talents, who they are as an individual. they should be given every opportunity to succeed. they should not be discriminated against. so i don't consider it difficult. i just don't consider it difficult. we simply should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity, period. and i think this is something we need to pass and we need to pass as as soon as possible. a lot of states have done different things. companies have come forward. we know that. it's time now to say all

marines, no matter who you are, no matter your sexual identity, your gender identity, if you're willing to work hard, willing to contribute to society, and then you're important to us. you're part of the american family. you taught ought to be included. committee will stand adjourned. tonight jpmorgan chase's ceo jamie dimon testifies on the recent announcement that jpmorgan had $2 billion in trading losses. the other agencies are also investigating what happened and why.

see his testimony tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also tonight, defense secretary lee on panetta testifies before senate appropriation sub committee on the defense department's 2013 budget request. the house appropriations committee has already passed that bill, and it provides $3 billion more than president obama's request. the measure has yet to make it to the house floor. to see this hearing at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. tomorrow, british prime minister david cameron testifies before a panel, examinening the relationship between the press and politicians. all this week, the inquiries for testimony from senior politicians, including former prime ministers john major and gordon brown. it concludes tomorrow with comments from prime minister cameron. to see it live starting at 5:00

a.m. eastern on c-span 2. kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on booktv. follow david on his journey, walking in a president's footsteps. sunday, starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a video record of his travels, and then live at 7:30, david takes your calls and questions. also this weekend, the conservative commentator blames liberals for an ongoing war on idea, using the tyranny of cliche. >> american politics has been distorted for the last century. the further you get away from the left, the closer you get to bad things. in some ways the best working way is simply a conservative winning an argument. >> that's sunday night at 9:00 on booktv.

this weekend on c-span 2. the story behind the star spangled banner. the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. this weekend on american history tv. the he would see through the rocket's red glare. historians, authors on this. also this weekend, the change of political history. the contenders, sunday at 7:30 p.m. this week with three-time democratic candidate for president william jennings bryan. american history tv. this weekend on c-span 3. it's been 40 years since it began. this weekend, c-span 3 will concern the breakin.

and a call for presidency. it compounds itself. it's basically become blackmail. two, people are going to start picking it up quick. ly. >> the nixon tapes this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern in washington, d.c. listen at 90.1 fm. nationwide or on xm 119. and streaming on c-span.org.

this is a little more than an hour. good morning. welcome to the national press club. we hope this will be a robust situation looking at national security in an era of austerity. there's no question the u.s. department of defense and homeland security as well as the intelligence community, are facing tough decisions, as they seek to balance national security needs with budget realities. today's panel of government, private sector and military experts will discuss evolving and unpredictable press, how the defense industry can build more capable, agile systems for less,

and how the nation can balance budget requirements while ensuring national security. before we get to our guests' opening remarks, there will be time for questions and answers it is a national press club tradition to give priority during the question and answer session to working journalists, so i ask that you allow those with deadlines to go first. if you would, please, identify yourself by both name and organization. joining us today, representing his private sector perspective, is david langstaff, president and ceo of task. with reflections from his military perspective, general james cartwright, retired vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. welcome. and with some thoughts from the government point of view, senator carl levin, chairman of the senate armed service committee. th