INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”
Guest:
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Reporters: Lou Chibbaro, Washington Blade and Jonathan Kaplan, The Hill
Moderator: C-SPAN
TAPE DATE: Thursday, November 8, 2007
AIR DATE/TIME:
SUNDAY, November 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET
Please use with attribution to
C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*
* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network
Please contact
Amy Spolrich in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at
202-626-7958
or aspolrich@c-span.org for questions
© NCSC
Copyrighted material: use with attribution only
PETER SLEN, HOST: Well, this week, by a vote of 235 to 184, the House of Representatives passed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act for the first time. Also known as ENDA, it prohibits discrimination against employees simply based on their sexual orientation.
Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat of Wisconsin, was one of the primary sponsors of the bill, and spent quite a bit of time on the floor debating the bill. She’s joining us this week for “Newsmakers.”
Here to question her, Lou Chibbaro of the “Washington Blade,” and Jonathan Kaplan of “The Hill” newspaper.
Representative Baldwin, if I could start.
This bill passed. It’s not veto-proof. You need 280 votes to keep it veto-proof from President Bush, if he decides to veto it. The Senate has not brought it up.
Is there a future in ENDA?
U.S. REP. TAMMY BALDWIN, (D-WI): Well, there absolutely is a future. And we know with all civil rights movements, that they aren’t things that happen overnight, but you build a foundation on which to build.
We do expect the Senate to introduce a counterpart Employment Nondiscrimination Act this session of Congress, and hope that there will be discussion in the Senate.
We also know that the White House did put out its statement of administration policy, suggesting a veto threat.
So, it’s something that we are not likely to see signed into law during the 110th Congress, but this is an important first step. It’s a milestone along a longer journey.
SLEN: Jonathan Kaplan.
JONATHAN KAPLAN, SENIOR STAFF WRITER, “THE HILL”: Congresswoman, thanks for doing this.
Let me ask – let’s go back and talk about this amendment – the amendment – about applying the civil rights laws and the employment discrimination laws to transgendered individuals and transgender workers.
Did Speaker Pelosi and Chairman George Miller explicitly promise you that if you withheld the amendment in committee, that they would allow you to bring it to the floor? And do you feel that they went back on their promise?
BALDWIN: There was a lot of discussion about, first of all, dating back to before the discussions in committee, on what form the Employment Nondiscrimination Act would take as it approached the vote on final passage.
Earlier in the spring, a bill, H.R. 2015 was introduced. It enjoyed the support of 171 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives in terms of co-sponsorship. And it provided employment protections on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
As discussions continued and strategy discussions were undertaken about moving the bill to committee and then to the floor, concerns were raised that the bill in its original form might not be able to withstand the Republican motion to recommit that could be brought.
As we know, the Republicans – the minority party – is always afforded the opportunity on the floor to pose some sort of an amendment. And so, discussions were undertaken about how we would bring a bill to the floor that would be able to withstand that type of motion.
In that process, as the bill approached committee consideration, the primary author of the original bill, Barney Frank, introduced two measures in the form of one that protected folks in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, and another that added gender identity to the nation’s employment protection laws.
And the one that dealt with sexual orientation only, went to committee.
Now, to get to your very specific question, Jonathan, the commitment that was made was actually between leadership and the chairman, and the members of the committee. Members of the committee expressed concerns that they wanted to be able to vote on an inclusive bill. They wanted to have the opportunity to have that vote on the floor or in committee. And an agreement was made that an amendment would be offered, and I agreed to be the author of that amendment, and as you saw yesterday, brought that to the floor and debated it.
While many would have liked to have had a vote up or down on the amendment, I think it became clear that it’s much more of a political challenge to add a controversial provision to a bill on the floor than it is to protect a provision that’s already in a bill.
And so, as this approached the floor, it was clear that we probably would fall short of the votes needed to pass the amendment. And I think there was a broad consensus that it would be better for the future of the movement, and better for the odds of passing an inclusive bill at the nearest possible stage, if we didn’t actually have a roll call on it, but we got a chance to educate through the debate on the floor and then withdraw the amendment from consideration.
And that’s actually what transpired.
I think it did serve to educate members, because as we were counting votes, as we were discussing with members the benefits of an inclusive bill, many really did gain greater understanding of the complex issues at stake in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.
KAPLAN: So, this is a – there will be another bite at the apple, to use Speaker Pelosi’s words.
BALDWIN: You know, these are – we would love to see civil rights expanded in one fell swoop in a very short period of time.
It’s really never been the history. If you think about civil rights movements – and there have been many in this country – they’ve taken time. They have been complex undertakings. They involve education and enhancing understanding in the American public, and among members of Congress.
And this will take time. But I think ultimately, we will be able to pass and have signed into law an inclusive bill.
SLEN: Lou Chibbaro.
LOU CHIBBARO, SENIOR NEWS REPORTER, “WASHINGTON BLADE”: Congresswoman, you, of course, were put in a somewhat unusual position for having some of many of your strongest allies in the gay and transgender community asking your colleagues to vote no. Some actually said anything short of a fully inclusive bill with transgender protections would be unacceptable.
Could you tell a little bit about how you dealt with that in this unusual position of having ordinarily friendly constituents asking you to vote against this bill?
BALDWIN: Well, I think we were of one mind with regard to the ultimate goal, which was to push for an inclusive bill and do so as long as we possibly could. And, in fact, we were pushing till the final moments of the debate on the floor. And so, we’re laying the groundwork for that day.
I know that there were differences of opinion, particularly around whether no bill would be better than a bill that didn’t provide protections both on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And that was an active debate for several weeks, both within the institution of Congress and outside, in the advocacy community, those who are committed to equal rights and civil rights for all.
But I think, ultimately, when the decision was made to forward the bill in the form that it was reported out of committee, that at that point in time, the question presented to members of Congress was whether to vote for it or against it.
And we certainly did lose a number of votes on the Democratic side that were protest votes for it not being an inclusive bill. I count seven votes no. And I respect, and that’s a very honorable position to take.
But I think we also said very resoundingly yesterday, that this is a – it was a strong and bipartisan vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. And again, that sets the groundwork for an even more inclusive bill in future sessions.
CHIBBARO: Was there ever a time when you thought possibly the protest vote would rise above the seven that we saw yesterday to actually endanger the bill?
BALDWIN: Well, I certainly think that the tenor of the debate has varied over the course of the many weeks that it took us to advance this to a floor vote. And probably, had it been scheduled at a different point in time, we would have seen different politics play out.
But I think ultimately, when the decision was made to advance the bill to a floor vote, that many in the advocacy community decided that a vote in favor was the right thing to do at that stage. And I think that it was a historic vote.
I still feel somewhat bittersweet about it, because I would have liked it to be a historic vote on an inclusive bill. But it isn’t, and we’ve made, I think, a very powerful statement – the first time this has ever been voted upon in the House of Representatives in its history. And it’s a very strong vote, and it will bode well for building upon that success in future sessions.
KAPLAN: Congresswoman, during the debate yesterday, I believe Mark Souder brought up Mark Foley, complaining that – I’m not quite sure what his point was, or I don’t remember – but, you know, that people – that the Democrats ran ads in the 2006 campaign linking him to Mark Foley.
Another colleague of mine at another Capitol Hill trade publication asked Barney Frank sort of about the scandal du jour this fall, about Larry Craig. And I’m wondering if you think that Larry Craig is gay.
BALDWIN: I haven’t the slightest idea. I frankly have not even had the opportunity to work with him on any bills or substantive measures, and wouldn’t have a clue.
KAPLAN: Do you agree with Barney Frank that – I think Frank called him a hypocrite?
BALDWIN: I have no idea of the context in which that statement was made, and I would not care to comment at this point.
SLEN: Congresswoman Baldwin, 35 Republicans voted for this bill. Was that a procedural vote to vote for it? Or were these supporters of the bill?
BALDWIN: These were very strong Republican supporters of the bill. And I have had the honor in my work in preparing for the floor consideration, I had the honor of participating in what we call the whip operation, where we count the votes, and had conversations with members of both parties, both sides of the aisle, and heard some very, very powerful stories from my colleagues about how they came to be strong supporters of civil rights legislation, and particularly the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and covering both sexual orientation and gender identity in our employment nondiscrimination laws.
And many of the conversations – heartfelt conversations – were with Republican members – the members, 35 of them, who joined us on the vote, aye on final passage.
I’m very proud of them. I’m very proud to work with them. I think they set a very important example that says – well, it says for their party that they’re increasingly tolerant and accepting. And that will be good for the nation. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
SLEN: And Congressman Mark Souder, a Republican of Indiana, also spoke at length on the floor yesterday about religious exemptions.
What is the status of a religious institution, and with this bill, who it would have to hire?
BALDWIN: Well, there was always a religious exemption in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. We know from litigation that has occurred after the passage of previous civil rights laws in employment, that there has to be an exemption for religious institutions to be able to hire, for example, people who share their faith.
That’s a longstanding and constitutional aspect of this type of legislation. So, there has to be a religious exemption.
There was, though, considerable debate on how broad that religious exemption should be in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Should it apply only to churches and synagogues and mosques? Or could it also apply to institutions that are very closely related to those religious entities?
And in the end, we ended up acting on the floor yesterday to broaden the exemptions. So, for example, colleges and universities that are sponsored and very closely tied to religious entities could also be exempt from the coverage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.
SLEN: Do you agree with that?
BALDWIN: Well, I don’t – I did not favor a – I actually voted in favor of the Miller amendment, which made some clarifications.
But I wouldn’t want to broaden it, because you get to a point, perhaps, where the exceptions can begin to swallow the whole legislation.
But I don’t think we did anything unreasonable yesterday during floor consideration. And this is what it required to advance the legislation. I think it was appropriate.
SLEN: Lou Chibbaro.
CHIBBARO: Congresswoman, I was wondering, following up on that, another amendment, of course, that was passed was one introduced by Congressman Souder and agreed to by the Democrats on marriage.
Can you tell a little bit about that?
Some in the community might feel that perhaps the Democrats sold out a little bit there. They agreed to remove language that would have protected people from discrimination based on marital status in cases, of course, where lesbians and gays cannot legally marry in all but one state – Massachusetts.
BALDWIN: Yes, I was troubled by that amendment. And certainly, a sizable number of folks voted against it.
But I think one of the things that was pretty clear is that there was a strategic decision made – I wasn’t a party to this – that having that vote would allow Democrats and Republicans to be able to oppose the Republican motion to recommit, which also concerned the topic of marriage.
And again, I voted no on that Souder amendment. I think it was unnecessary and did not help advance the issue. But indeed, it did pass. And I think we should be taking a strong look at that in future efforts, because we know this isn’t the last word on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, that we will have opportunities to improve and perfect it.
KAPLAN: Congresswoman, you talked about the strategic thinking behind this bill. And I’m wondering have you – do you consider motions to recommit procedural votes, or votes on policy?
BALDWIN: Well, they’re a little bit of each. For those in your viewing audience who aren’t familiar with the right accorded the minority party to offer what is known as a motion to recommit, at the end of consideration of legislation, it really has both a procedural aspect and a substantive aspect to it.
Procedurally, the bill to – or the motion to recommit – recommits a bill to committee. And it can do it in one of two ways. If it’s forthwith, it’s actually a fictitious recommital to the committee. The committee doesn’t actually reconvene and consider the bill. It sort of though it was dipped in committee and then brought right back to the floor, forthwith.
If it’s a promptly – if that’s the way the amendment – or the motion to recommit is worded, “promptly” literally recommits the bill to committee. And that means that anywhere between – well, pretty much two weeks have to pass before procedurally you could get the bill even possibly back to the floor.
And so, that’s the procedural aspect of a motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit also adds an amendment to the bill. And so, that’s the substantive aspect of a motion to recommit.
And some have argued that motion to recommits ought to be somehow divided into their procedural aspect and their substantive aspect, so that we can deal with them in a different way than we currently do.
At this point, that’s a sort of discussion for another day. Obviously, it affects ENDA, but also affects every other bill that we’re dealing with. And as I said, it has both a procedural and a substantive impact.
KAPLAN: Right. But if the Democratic leadership has been willing to let a lot of the freshmen vote for the motions to recommit, putting them on sort of this slippery slope, that when they really want to build a past (ph), that you can’t claim that – you know, it takes away the argument that this is not policy, it’s just procedure. Well, you voted for a whole bunch in the past.
And I’m wondering if that was sort of a strategic mistake.
BALDWIN: Well, I think, all the members of both sides of the aisle have to understand the impact of their votes.
I think that anything that is worded with the phrase “promptly” is something that is a killing amendment, regardless of the substance of the amendment, and that Democrats ought to be held to account, if they are doing – if they are casting a vote that kills a bill that is of importance.
SLEN: Lou Chibbaro.
CHIBBARO: Congresswoman, has word come down from the Senate about what may happen and what the timetable may be there with Senator Kennedy? I understand he’s said that he now plans to introduce a bill fairly soon.
Is there any word about whether the Senate will actually take a vote on the bill?
BALDWIN: Your news is as current as my news, Lou. That is what I understand also, that a bill should be introduced in the Senate fairly soon. But I have not heard any timeline for committee consideration hearings or the like, and will be keenly listening to what the progress is on the Senate side.
KAPLAN: Have you had any conversations with any of the senators?
BALDWIN: Not of late. Not, certainly, since our historic vote yesterday.
But I will follow up on the eve of that vote with conversations with Senate champions of civil rights.
SLEN: Congresswoman, if Nancy Pelosi’s statistics are correct that she put out on this, 89 percent of Americans support equal treatment for gays and lesbians, 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies have nondiscrimination acts in their corporate charters.
Why do you think it is that 159 Republicans and 25 Democrats, then, voted against something that seems to be supported by the American people?
BALDWIN: Well, I would love to say that great ideas, and especially on civil rights issues, that they originate under the Capitol Dome. But frankly, that’s not been our history in this country.
The civil rights movements have started at the very grassroots level, as people have been discriminated against, and given voice to that and organized movements.
Unfortunately, Congress has historically followed, rather than led on many of the important civil rights debates. And I think ENDA is very reflective of that.
I would – as I said, I would love to be able to say that we’re the leaders in this regard. But in fact, corporate America, municipalities and the states have been much bolder and made very strong statements prior to our action.
But I do think, nonetheless, that it’s very important that we do ultimately pass a strong Employment Nondiscrimination Act. And as I’ve said a number of times during the debate on this, it has both a substantive and symbolic impact that’s really powerful.
Substantively, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act will provide legal tools for just – for people who have been discriminated against to seek justice and to become whole again, if they’ve suffered financial loss because of illegal discrimination.
But symbolically, these bills also say to the American people that irrational fear and hatred that leads to discrimination is wrong and is unlawful, and ought not be tolerated in a society like ours.
And I think as the corporate sector is saying, if we want to be the most competitive economy on this planet, we need to be able to promote the hiring of the best and brightest, and evaluation on the skill set that a worker has, not things that are completely irrelevant to a person’s capacity to do a job, and do a job well.
KAPLAN: Congresswoman, as long as we’re talking about gender, I know that you’ve endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Do you agree with this sort of assessment that their campaign is putting out, that the men are piling on in a way that’s unfair, or they would treat her differently if she were not a – if she were a man?
BALDWIN: I believe that she had more attention in the last debate, because she is such – the frontrunner at this point. And I don’t believe that it had to do as much with gender. And I don’t think that that’s what Senator Clinton was saying herself.
I certainly heard a couple of those comments come out of the campaign. But I really think that she is getting a lot of the attention and the critique, because she has established such a credible campaign, is doing so well throughout the nation, but certainly in the early primary states. And so, she’s the target of her competitors’ attention.
KAPLAN: And when is Wisconsin’s primary?
BALDWIN: Ours is on February 19th. We used to be one of the earliest states, but this year we are quite – very much in the middle of the pack.
KAPLAN: And can you talk about, you know, without your endorse – you know, where – how the race shapes up there? I mean, it could end up important, if there’s a deadlock between after February 5th.
BALDWIN: Well, I think that at this point, all of the candidates are – I mean, there’s a very competitive race going on in Wisconsin. I haven’t seen the most recent polling.
But we benefit from a lot of proximity to Iowa. And so, oftentimes that means the candidates are actually stopping by in Wisconsin, and also that we’re getting the benefit of hearing the candidates address issues that are of great significance to the Upper Midwest. We share some very strong interests with the people of Iowa in terms of our economy, our agricultural strengths, et cetera.
I know that Senator Clinton’s energy plan that was unveiled earlier this week was well received in Wisconsin as bold, and also a boon to the Upper Midwest agricultural economy.
CHIBBARO: Congresswoman, concerning the presidential race – again, to take it a step further – the issue of same-sex marriage, of course, has come up from time to time. And Senator Clinton and others have stated – most of the Democratic candidates, they support equal marriage rights through civil unions and not marriage.
And some, including Senator Obama, have said that they would bring that about by assuring through federal law, that persons of the same sex who choose a civil union would have equal marital rights. But no one has yet introduced legislation to do that.
Is that something you would consider? Or would you ask Senator Clinton to introduce that legislation?
BALDWIN: Well, first of all, in terms of a piece of this, domestic partnership, I do plan later this year to introduce legislation – either later this year or early next year – to introduce legislation that would provide domestic partnership benefits for those in federal employment – something that I think we ought to be talking about, which is a first step, but obviously very different from the larger issue you raised about marriage.
I am a supporter of same-sex marriage rights and disagree with virtually all of the candidates on both sides of the aisle, with the exception of two Democratic contenders who have endorsed same-sex marriage rights.
But that said, in my evaluation, the things that concern me most are whether the potential candidates will be advocates for the passage of important civil rights legislation in Congress, and will sign those bills once they reach her or his desk.
And in that regard, since marriage is almost – not exclusively, but almost exclusively regulated at the state level, it would – it’s not an issue that will land, in terms of an affirmative step, on the president’s desk. But ENDA will, and hate crimes is likely to. And a number of other very important pieces of legislation affecting the LGBT community is like to advance to the next president’s desk.
And I am proud to be supporting Senator Clinton, who I know will be a champion in terms of both helping these measures get through Congress, but also signing them.
SLEN: Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat of Wisconsin, thank you for being our guest on “Newsmakers.”
BALDWIN: Thank you.
(BREAK)
SLEN: Lou Chibbaro and Jonathan Kaplan.
Jonathan, you brought up the notion of recommitting a bill or an amendment. Why is that?
KAPLAN: Well, the Republicans, they’ve been very good about putting Democrats on the spot. The minority in the House doesn’t have a whole lot of power, and they don’t have very many tools at their disposal to enact their agenda.
One way to do that is a procedural measure, which can turn into a policy tool called the motion to recommit. I thought Congresswoman Baldwin described it quite well, and better than I ever could. And she was quite concise and clear about what it is.
And the Republicans have used that very well, where, in some cases, Democrats have had to yank a bill off the floor and come back another day to have a vote.
But when the Republicans were in charge, the motion to recommit was always, always a procedural vote. So, if you were from a – if you were a liberal Republican from a district that previous Democratic presidential candidates had won, you could always sort of fall back on that.
You didn’t have this argument that, well, I voted here in one case, but I voted here for another reason. It’s procedural. But no, it’s policy. It’s policy. No, it’s procedural.
The Democrats have given their members some room to maneuver.
The problem is, they’ve put them on a slippery slope, that, you know, if you don’t want to vote for it, you say, look, it’s just a procedural thing. But then somebody would say back, well, over here you voted for it, and you were saying it’s a policy tool, or it’s a, you know, it’s an indication of where you stand and what you believe in. So, you’re trying to have it both ways.
And it’s sort of gotten them into trouble on some occasions.
SLEN: Lou Chibbaro is a senior news reporter for the “Washington Blade,” a newspaper that targets the gay community here in Washington, D.C.
To that community, how significant was this vote?
CHIBBARO: It was very, very significant. It’s something that the community had been pushing for, for 33 years. As people have talked about, there was some reminiscing about the late Congresswoman Bella Abzug in the early 1970s – or the mid-1970s – was the first to introduce the bill.
But by the same token, it was offset a little bit, as the congresswoman referred to a little bit, on disagreements within the gay community and the advocacy groups over whether they should move forward with a bill without a transgender protection provision.
And some of that got pretty heated, where Congressman Frank was criticized by a lot of longtime groups that had supported gay rights. And some are predicting that it may lead to some shakeups in the gay lobbying organizations and who would be more predominant, whether it be state groups or the national groups.
At this stage, it seems like most of the rank-and-file, from what I can hear from the community, did favor moving ahead, as long as they were assured that there would be advancement on the transgender protections in the near future.
SLEN: To both of you, do you see the Employment Nondiscrimination Act or hate crimes or gay issues as a campaign issue in campaign ’08 for either Congress or for the presidency?
KAPLAN: I don’t think it’s one of those issues that a candidate is going to win on. It’s probably one of those issues that they can lose on, depending on – and, you know, they’re quite cautious. I mean, even the Democrats aren’t – you know, she said only two of them share her position on same-sex marriage.
So, it’s something – you know, the Republicans use these issues to sort of rally their base. The Democrats sort of tend to avoid it, even though they could probably – again, some of their base might be excited by it.
But I think, in general, they want these social issues to take a backseat to the bread-and-butter economic and national security issues.
CHIBBARO: Yes, I think that certainly the Republicans are likely to bring up gay issues, particularly the gay marriage issue. It appeared that some tried to do that in the debate on the floor yesterday in the House on ENDA.
Some tried to link – as Congressman Souder I believe did – the ENDA to advancing gay marriage by so-called activist judges. And the Democrats withdrew part of the bill. Congressman Frank says it wasn’t significant. He thinks that marriage-related discrimination still could be addressed in the existing bill.
But it did indicate that the Democrats are sensitive for something that could come up in the campaign.
SLEN: And finally, President Bush didn’t say out-and-out that he was going to veto this version of the bill. Do you think he will veto it, where it gets to him?
CHIBBARO: Most advocates and political pundits that I talk to say they think he will. But they also point out that the language the White House released was the least stringent that they often do, if it’s on – sometimes reading tealeaves – but it was the least stringent. They said his advisors would likely suggest that he veto it.
In other cases, the president has said directly, I will veto something. At this point, he has not done that.
KAPLAN: Well, I think it depends on what the Senate comes up with. But it certainly – I agree with what Lou said. I mean, what the White House said and what they will do remains to be seen, whether they’re two separate things.
SLEN: Jonathan Kaplan is with “The Hill.” Lou Chibbaro is with the “Washington Blade.”
Gentlemen, thank you for being on “Newsmakers.”
KAPLAN: Thanks.
CHIBBARO: Thank you.
END