I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the passage of an ENDA that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. I have been a lead sponsor for proposals like ENDA every year since I became a member of the New York State Assembly 30 years ago. I am a proud original cosponsor of the original ENDA bill that would protect the entire LGBT community.

I believe that civil rights are best advanced by bringing forward a bill that adequately protects all members of the LGBT community. While this may be risky, it is not reason to accept defeat before the fact and to leave behind members of the community who desperately need protection against employment discrimination.

As we have seen in many States, the failure to include transgender people in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later. My own State of New York, which enacted employment protections for lesbians and gays, has yet to extend these protections to the transgender community.

The Senate has yet even to introduce its version of ENDA. Indeed, even if Congress were to adopt a noninclusive ENDA, the President has already pledged to veto this legislation. So it is not a question, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of now choosing to protect a great number of people and leaving behind a smaller number of people as the price of so doing because we cannot pass this legislation into law and protect anyone this year, unfortunately.

We must look to the future when we have a President who will support equality. I believe it is important we take a principled stand now and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in order to maximize the chance that when we can enact an ENDA bill into law, it will be an inclusive bill that protects everyone's rights. And we must better educate lawmakers and the public about the issues of gender identity and expression.

While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. No one should underestimate the strength of that common commitment or our dedication to seeing it realized. Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford.

And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' That is not our intent, nor do we believe it is an accurate reading of the bill, but congressional intent does not always carry the day. Splitting sexual orientation and gender identity disserves the entire LGBT community and invites the kind of legal mischief that has undermined other civil rights laws.

The fundamental issue is this: There are still too many places where it is entirely legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees. We must bring an end to this unfair, unacceptable and un-American situation.

When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.