Posted on 07/06/2005 9:44:01 AM PDT by Calpernia
Legislation that would guard federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced last week with the support of 11 lawmakers.
The bill, known as the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act (H.R. 3128), is in response to Senate testimony by Special Counsel Scott Bloch when he stated that the Office of Special Counsel is limited by law in its ability to protect gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The legislation, proposed by House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., would amend the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act affirming "that federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary."
"At a time when our federal employees are working tirelessly on behalf of the nation, we should be doing our utmost to ensure that all are protected against discrimination," Waxman said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to have abandoned a long-standing bipartisan interpretation of the law that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation."
The proposed law, if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, would add to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination against employees or potential employees that include race, gender, national origin, age, handicaps, marital status and political affiliation.
As chief of the Office of Special Counsel, Bloch is charged with heading up independent investigations and prosecutions of merit system violations in the federal workplace. He maintained before a panel of senators on May 24 that federal law does not give him the authority to prosecute discrimination against federal employees for their sexual orientation status.
"We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, quite contrary to it," Bloch said at the hearing. "We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them ... The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a status protection under our statutes."
In response to an inquiryon the proposed legislation, OSC officials referred a reporter to Bloch's Senate testimony and an April 2004 agency release that announced after a two-month review that OSC had concluded it has the authority to prosecute cases of discrimination on "actual conduct."
While the Bush administration has maintained a position banning discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation, Bloch ordered the review to determine the legality of the agency's policy in prosecuting cases of sexual discrimination in agencies and had the information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints removed from the agency's Web site and brochures.
Not included in the announcement was Bloch's viewpoint on case law supporting sexual orientation discrimination cases, which he believes blocks the agency from prosecuting cases involving a federal manager firing or disciplining an employee merely for being a homosexual, according to his testimony. If the manager took action against the employee for actions, in private or public, the agency would have the authority to prosecute.
The information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints has not been returned to the agency Web site.
OSC spokeswomen Cathy Deeds said that Congress has twice tried to pass legislation that would give homosexuals "protected class status," allowing OSC to enforce Bush's policy forbidding sexual orientation discrimination, but both attempts failed.
"[I]t is now in the hands of Congress," Deeds wrote in an e-mail to Government Executive.
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Danny K. Davis, D-Ill.; Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y.: Mark Foley, R-Fla.; Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.; Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz.; Christopher Shays, R-Conn.; and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.
"Where does it come from?"
That is a good question, as I said, I wonder if Skousen mentions that in his book. He may or may not, but it surely would be very interesting to get hold of the original documents, and see what they say exactly.
I haven't verified the particular report cited here, but the source cited in the post is the Congressional Record (most likely quoting an FBI report to HUAC, I'd infer), which can be accessed online for certain dates, though unfortunately this record is old enough you'd have to physically check a Federal Depository Library to obtain a copy:
Thomas Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
3. For what time periods does THOMAS have legislative information? THOMAS has the Congressional Record and full text of legislation available from 1989 (101st Congress) to the present. In addition, THOMAS has summaries (not full text) of legislation are available back to 1973 (93rd Congress). A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774-1875 provides a century's worth of congressional proceedings, statutes, and other information. Legislative texts and documents prior to 1989 may be found in print form at Federal Depository Libraries. You can locate a library at this site by either state or area code. Legislation is eventually codified in the U.S. Code, which may be found in several locations other than the one given here.
One other place that type of information can be obtained is from the annual reports archived here:
Records of the United States House of Representatives
233.25 RECORDS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL SECURITY AND ITS PREDECESSORS 1938-75 2,301 lin. ft.
233.25.1 Records of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities (1938-45)
233.25.2 Records of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (1945-69) and the House Committee on Internal Security (1969-75)
Annual reports on Communist activity were also filed with the state equivalents of HUAC and SISS--for example, a few are online here:
Online Archive of California: Texts > Free Speech Movement Archives > Government Documents
The Lusk Report's second volume appendix is also a good resource for primary source documents summarizing Communist Party goals:
Speaking of that, a couple other items I should add. The FBI seized some internal Communist documents from a meeting in Bridgman, Michigan in 1922; these are cited in R.M. Whitney's 1924 book Reds in America, which has been reprinted a few times. Also, CP papers such as The Daily Worker are available in microfilm collection:
Newspapers of the American Communist Party
A virtually complete set of the official newspapers of the American Communist Party from 1919 through today’s editions is now available. The retrospective set includes People’s Daily World and its predecessors—The Daily Worker, The Ohio Socialist, The Toiler, The Worker, The Midweek Worker, and The Southern Worker. An annual subscription to People’s Weekly World (two reels annually) keeps coverage current.
A portion of the FBI's files on The Daily Worker are on the FBI's FOIA site and on CD-ROM:
Federal Bureau of Investigation: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section: Daily Worker
Maybe you should open an inn in Vermont.
Any wacko congresscritter can put anything they want in "extended remarks" (where I suspect this came from. Skousen seems like a better source but, as a I said, I would expect even the greatest historian to back up claims with a reference to primary sources. What was the *specific* source for the Goals and where can it be obtained?
W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist
Otherwise the individual goals listed could be cross-referenced against other sources such as those I mentioned. Some of the goals there are consistent with what I've seen elsewhere; other goals I'd have to verify. I'd add that IMO goal lists such as this should be read in historical context. Communists do have some generic long-term goals derived from the general aims of Marxism, but in the short term they tend to adjust these goals and the corresponding tactics as situations change. For instance, goal #8 from Skousen's list reflects an outdated situation and would no longer be applicable in its original form: "8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N."
Big bump
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Here we go again - this is the stepping stone to hatespeech. Where's freedom of association? I guess it disappeared along with property rights and religious freedom.
What are conservatives going to do? Go underground? Give up? All go to a group of contiguous states and start our own country?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Also known as "The Big Plan".
bump!
bookmarking
Thanks for the ping!
'Nuff said.
Just of interest.
Found a letter:
http://www.house.gov/frank/sorosletter.pdf
Rep. B. Frank inviting Soros to Capitol Hill to speak.
In that letter, Rep. Frank expressed concern over 'the McCarthyite attacks that have been made by politicians. He said the attacks went beyond reasonable bounds of civil discourse in an effort to discredit Soros.
From a purely capitialist point of view, "job performance" should be the main deciding factor in hiring, promotions and keeping people employed.
Very true.
Thank you. Most people tend to forget this when they get into issues like in the above article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.