enforceable by the employee. you can have a role and ignore the rule. >> you can have a law and ignore the law. >> but then there is a remedy. we talked about remedies in the law, we don't just talk about rules. >> my point is, there is slippage in both instances. just because you have a statute, doesn't mean magically that you're not going to have any more discrimination. even if you can bring lawsuits. different companies may structure these guidelines differently. if you were a company, you could structure is so am here is our policy. if you're an individual and you think your immediate supervisor has discriminated against you on the basis of sexual orientation you can follow complaint with the hr department. things similar to that are done in this area already.

>> [inaudible] >> thank you. sexual harassment, if you're sexually harassed by your immediate supervisor and 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 it could set of protections against sexual orientation discrimination the same way. >> and many of those cases still and up in the courts. any more questions? commissioner? >> it has been asserted by some who oppose uniform federal

standard that adoption of same will lead to sexual harassment in the workplace as opposed to redress sexual harassment in the work laceplace, 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 would then become defined ipso facto as creating a hostile work environment as some opponents have argued. >> sure. so there's absolutely no evidence despite the fact that we have 21 states and the district of columbia that have not discriminate in laws on the books that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that is 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 not cover up your with those statistics in terms of what we're discussing today. we would be happy to get those to you. to the extent, however, someone who is straight is experiencing sexual harassment [indiscernible] they have remedy currently under

title vii. and it covers that only lgbt people, but straight people as well. so those individuals would have a remedy that only through their employer, but also in the courts if it were a persistent problem. >> any sexual harassment that isn't otherwise being addressed through existing laws correct? >> correct. [no audio] between people of the same sex. in one decision more than two decades ago, and those are remedies that exist currently for individuals and this will not change those actions to that remedy "washington journal so if there are same-sex and opposite sex, or if they're gay or straight adoption of a uniform federal standard has no impact

is that correct? >> that is correct, with regard to sexual harassment. so someone who is engaging in the behavior based on the sex of the individual and in a sexual terms and sexual nature as opposed to an employee who is her resting another employee who is gay and using derogatory terms for someone who is gay in an attempt to drive them out of the workplace. >> it would be use of derogatory terms that would be addressed if we were to adopt the uniform federal standard. >> that's right. it would at least give people remedy to address harassment that is based on the sexual orientation of the individual rather than harassment that is just sexual in nature and happens to occur between two

people who are of the same sex. >> so calling someone a dyke or fag in the workplace. >> this law would allow employees to have a remedy for -- could you talk about the relationship, if any, between that and the assertion that persons of a particular deeply held religious belief would be -- what have their first amendment rights circumscribed in these workplaces if there were adoption of uniform federal standard to protect lgbt people in the workplace? >> religious employees are already protected under title vii. and have the ability to make assertions about the religious beliefs and the workplace. i will say there is a huge

difference between asserting in the workplace and opposition to marriage for same-sex couples or a belief that homosexuality is immoral, and calling someone dyke or fag. we can make distinctions between what is assertion of a person's religious beliefs and what is harassing behavior. now, certainly, if an individual posts passage of a national federal standard for not discriminate and in the workplace or to target in lgbt individual to enter the workplace on a daily basis a 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 toemploand i don't see

how there is an inconsistency between thinking

that that kind of prohibition is acceptable and saying that we should not add an additional prohibition against determination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. the reasons that i give for being opposed to inda, i think would -- would not apply to discrimination on the basis of religion. >> i want to be clear that i think it is 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 you have made a statement that it is very clear in the case of race to you why title vii is important.

and the reasons you give are because the long history that we have had with discrimination which we have also had against lgbtq people, but you make the argument that race is not an immutable characteristic, where it is more difficult -- >> i didn't use the word "immutable" in my testimony. >> i'm just trying to clarify why race is different from lgbtq status and -- but yet, the basis of which is different is the same reasons that you can look at religion in terms of the smallness of the numbers of impact, whether or not government should be involved in that. i just wanted to make sure i understood where you are coming from. i wanted to ask you whether -- if inda were to happen, see every the issue of bona fide

occupational qualifications. >> not in those terms, no. >> i thought you did in your testimony. >> i don't think so. but i would be happy to talk about it. and i agree with the point i think was in the previous panel discussing the fact there is no -- in inda. >> may be was in the attachments to a testimony. ok well, let me ask the question, do feel there should be bfoq for inda. >> i'm not particularly interested in fine tuning inda to make it a better statute because i think it is a bad statute from beginning to end. i don't think congress has the authority to pass it. if inda were passed, i would want a bfoq in it. >> what would that look like to you? >> i think it would be parallel

to bfoq language in title vii. which follows the prohibition in title vii of discrimination -- where it lists because of discrimination that are illegal, but then it says that -- this is 703e. it says that there is an exception where religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably 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 there would need to be a bfoq for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. i described some of those in my world testimony. for instance, if you have a caregiver and the customer who was being given a caregiver said, you know, i'm really not comfortable. this is a very intimate situation. i'm going to begin a bath by this person. i don't want to be -- the caregiver to be someone i think is going to be -- where sex is going to be an issue where there's any likelihood of sexual attraction by the individual to me.

so i am a straight male. therefore, i don't want women -- basically, i want a straight male to bathe me. i don't want women debate me because -- to bathe me for privacy reasons and i don't with him to be attracted and i don't want a gay man to bathe me, either. there's nothing religious about that. >> do you have aging parents? >> yeah. >> i have a very aging mother. and if we rejected every person she didn't want, we would have no people at all. >> you think there should be a federal law that requires her mother to have to hire whomever -- >> if someone said, it is very intimate, i don't want a white person touching me, would that -- would you feel like that was ok? >> that is a good question.

of course, there is no bfoq for race. the reason is because the people at the time the statute was written were afraid that that exception would swallow the rule. at the time, that was a reasonable call. it there is a cost to that. >> that is the point i'm trying to make. can i ask the other panelists to answer the question about what kind of -- do they see whether there is any need for bfoq and what kind of bfoq would you think was appropriate if he felt one was going to be necessary? >> the only bfoq within groovy appropriate would be a bfoq apply continuing to sex, but were gender identity is pretty

consistent with the person's actual gender identity. if, for example, you have a bfoq for prison guards that requires only meant to be staffing male prisons, then you would need to hire a transgender man to staff or permit a transgender man to be a male prison guard. >> state for the record what you mean by transgender man. >> an individual who was assigned female at birth and transitioned to male at some point. >> in what way are just to clarify for the record? >> transitioning in multiple ways perfectly, those were transgender take hormones consistent with the sex that they have transitioned to. in sum though not all, also have surgery on their bodies to conform their bodies to the new presentation. >> so some you consider to be

transgender would not have any surgery, which -- with still have the biological equipment they had at birth. >> your microphone? >> sorry, it won't go on. i just went to clarify for the record, you would be talking about a transgender man maybe someone with female body as it were, female organs that has taken hormones to make them -- is the correct? >> they may have had some surgeries. they may have had surgery to have their bodies changed so that all of the genitalia no appears male. others may have had some surgery and not others. it varies from individual to individual. in terms of medical best practices, it is absolutely best for individuals to build a determine what level of surgery is right for them. >> which also conclude someone

who is not had hormonal trip meant, has not had surgery, but dresses and otherwise identifies with the sex that they were not born with? >> commissioner harriet, after that, i'll ask you not to asking more questions because we are already over the panel time. >> i just want to make sure i understand what the terms mean. >> way back to the original question, we would support a very limited bfoq -- >> which answer my question? >> i believe i have. >> someone can be transgender that has another hormonal treatment or espresso gender identity as when they were born with. >> i'm sorry, can i get my

question done? what's we would support a very limitedb. it does not seem there is a very -- in which summit and should be rejected based on their orientation or gender identity and engaging in employment context. very very narrow instance, even with sex, there is very few legitimate bfoq. >> what about religious accommodation? >> with the bfoq? >> with any exemption or accommodation of religious views. >> as i put in my both oral and rent testimony, the title vii standard is an ideal model. it allows religious employers

those were religious organizations, to provide preference to individuals other own religion in addition we have very robust case law around the ministerial exemption for religious organizations as well. >> in addition? >> no, that was the only question for me. >> the only thing i would add is i think it is something that mr. clegg said earlier about working with young children. i wasn't quite sure whether the comment meant to suggest -- >> i did not say that, i said adolescents. >> ok. whether the comment was meant as a just some and sexual orientation has something to do with one's ability or inability to work with adolescents. i think the medical profession and those who work with children

patrician's to the amerco psychological association to the medical association have also put those doubts to rest. >> all i was saying is straight men are more likely to be attracted to adolescent females than gay men are and that gay men are more likely to be attracted to adolescent males than straight men are. >> welcome i think -- >> think so? >> a very robust panel. we learned a lot, especially about mr. clegg's personal preference for individual care at some point. we're going to take a break for lunch. we will return at 1:00 p.m. with panel number three. thank you.

>> following a string of security lapses at the white house, secret service to richard joseph clancy testifies before house appropriations subcommittee today. you can see it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. later, the featured speaker at the center for strategic and international studies. she will discuss her department's energy priorities. to that lot at 1:00 p.m. eastern also on our campaigning network c-span3 bank. >> this week in, the c-span city store has partnered with media, to learn about the history and literary life of collapse, georgia. >> inside the museum is the remains of the confederate army clad, the css jackson, and this is an ironclad that was built your in columbus and the war. there are oval shapes that are actually the gun ports of the jackson. the jackson is armed with six

rifles. the particular rifle firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in some a, alabama and completed in january 1865 -- and selma, alabama, and completed in january to 65. the row claim to fame, there are only 4 ironclads from the civil war we can study right now. the jackson is right here, and that is why this facility is here. first and foremost, tells the story of this particular ironclad and to show people there are more than just one or two ironclads, there were many. >> saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2 "book tv."

like today, "washington journal." coming up and 45 minutes, representative steve king. at 8:30, commerce men brad sherman of california -- congressman brad sherman of california. at 9:15, daniel metcalf.

he will talk about the personal e-mail server used by hillary clinton and what it demonstrates about transparency and availability of government information. ♪ host: house republicans plan to release their version of the budget today that would partly privatize medicare, turn medicaid into a block grant, and as more war operations fence department's budget. -- to the defense department budget. you can see that on www.c-span.org. overseas general elections take late today in israel for a new 120 member parliament. the jerusalem post reporting a high turnout. and looking at the