Giffords is member of House LGBT Caucus

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ-08), who was shot in the head this morning after being targeted by Sarah Palin in a hit piece complete with firearm crosshairs, is one of 91 members of the U.S. House of Representatives LGBT Caucus. The caucus was chaired during the 111th Congress by the three openly gay or lesbian members of Congress, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO-02).

The mission of the caucus is

to promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality. The bi-partisan LGBT Equality Caucus will be comprised of Members of Congress who are strongly committed to achieving the full enjoyment of human rights for LGBT people in the U.S. and around the world. By serving as a resource for Members of Congress, their staff, and the public on LGBT issues, the Caucus will work toward the extension of equal rights, the repeal of discriminatory laws, the elimination of hate-motivated violence, and the improved health and well being for all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

<<< Giffords opponent Kelly said "remove" her with M16 | Home | Sarah Palin's hit list, with crosshairs targetting Gabrielle Giffords >>>

Look familiar?

In searching Tammy Baldwin's and Barney Frank's congressional web sites for news to share here, I noticed something of minor historical interest. The graphic on the left is a map of Frank's congressional district, Massachusetts' Fourth. The graphic on the right needs no introduction to students of American history.

<<< Ellen urges Californians to vote no on Prop. 8 | Home | Bill O’Reilly goes nuts when Barney Frank corrects him >>>

GOP Rep. John Kline questions need for transgender protections

Rep. John Kline (R-MN-02), the ranking minority member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, had a chance to address the issue of legislating transgender employment protections during the 26 Jun 2008 hearing. His head didn't spin 360°, he didn't projectile vomit pea soup, and he didn't sound like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Preparedness when she made herself sound like a loon tesifying on Don't Ask Don't Tell last week.

Kline is more incisive and surgical than that, crisply calling into question whether there is any evidence that anti-transgender discrimination even exists and whether proposals to pass an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act constitute legislating for its own sake. In doing so, he has set up the Republican rationale for voting against any version of ENDA at all, let alone one that encompasses gender identity.

Committee Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2008
CONTACT: Alexa Marrero
(202) 225-4527

Kline Statement: Subcommittee Hearing on "An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace"

Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for taking time out of their schedules to be here. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Andrews for his flexibility in scheduling this hearing.

The issue we are here to examine – gender identity and workplace discrimination – follows on the Majority's efforts last fall to include protections for transgender individuals in the employment non-discrimination legislation. The purpose of this general hearing is to allow for thorough and thoughtful consideration of this issue, and any future proposals that might affect the American people.

That said, I am somewhat puzzled as to why the Committee did not hold this hearing last year, before the Majority rushed to consider legislation on this issue.

Last September, this Subcommittee held the only hearing on this topic. It was a hearing on a prior bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which broadly aimed to prohibit organizations from discriminating in their employment practices against individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. During that hearing, we heard testimony from experts who cautioned that some of the provisions in that bill could be confusing, difficult to comply with, and potentially fraught with litigation. Complex questions were raised about how that bill would impact employers; whether it would preserve religious freedom and encroach on employee privacy; and how it would comply with existing anti-discrimination statutes.

The bill's sponsors scrambled to address these questions and concerns. Ultimately, they decided to split the original ENDA bill, separating the protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and attempting to address some of the technical concerns. But only the new bill involving sexual orientation discrimination was rushed to the House Floor for a vote. The flawed bill still raised many of the same serious concerns that were previously identified. After the bill passed the House in November 2007, it stalled in the Senate, where it still awaits action.

I can only speculate as to why no legislative action was taken on the other bill that sought protections based on gender identity. Despite the good intentions of those who supported these proposals, there still appeared to be too much uncertainty and too many unanswered questions. This explains why we are here today, examining an issue that perhaps should have been reviewed in greater detail before rushing to legislate.

We are all committed to the principle that no employee should be subject to discrimination. Before we consider and enact any new federal mandates, however, we must first determine whether a new law is necessary. Is there evidence that this type of discrimination is occurring? Are current laws and employer policies unable to protect employees? We have numerous federal and state laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent discriminatory practices. Do we need yet another federal law? It is my view that the role of this Committee, and Congress, is to build upon this framework only when needed, and to avoid legislating for its own sake.

I look forward to hearing the testimony to be offered by our witnesses about the practical impact, benefits, and problems associated with this issue. I'm pleased that we will hear multiple perspectives on this topic, and hope this testimony will help ensure that any future well-intentioned efforts do not result in harmful, unintended consequences.

I yield back the balance of my time.

<<< Still Black film clip | Home | Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is below. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Written Statement of Shannon Price Minter, Esq.
Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
To the
Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Room 2175
Rayburn House Office Building
An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace
June 26, 2008

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

This is truly a historic day, and one that is deeply meaningful not just to transgender people, but to all of our family members and loved ones as well. This is the first time that most transgender people have had the reality of our lives addressed by Congress. I am grateful to have this chance to speak to you today both as an attorney who specializes in transgender legal issues and as a transgender man.

I was born female and transitioned from female to male at the age of thirty-five, about twelve years ago. Growing up as a transgender young person in rural East Texas, I never would have dreamed of having this opportunity to address our nation’s legislators. I am keenly aware, as I am sure my fellow witnesses are as well, that we speak to you on behalf of your transgender constituents across the country, whether it be others living in rural Texas, suburban New Jersey, or metropolitan Minneapolis.

I am going to touch on three issues: who transgender people are; the pervasiveness of workplace discrimination against transgender people; and the inadequacy of current federal law to address that discrimination.

Transgender people are individuals whose internal identification as male or female does not match their assigned sex at birth, including many who undertake the medical process of changing their physical gender. Transgender people have existed throughout history and have been part of almost every culture and community. In the United States, transgender people come from every racial and ethnic group and live in every part of our country. Transgender people also work in virtually every occupation.(1)

Like other Americans, transgender people fervently wish to be able support ourselves and our families and to have the dignity of being treated as equal members of society. As employees, we want to be judged based on our skills and our qualifications—on what we have to offer, not on whether we happen to be transgender.

Many transgender people are fortunate to have support in their workplace and are able
to continue working in their chosen careers both during and after their transition from one gender to another; unfortunately, however, many others face some of the most blatant and severe workplace discrimination imaginable, to a degree that is often truly shocking. All too often, the mere disclosure that a person is transgender and intends to undergo, or has undergone, sex-reassignment results immediately in severe harassment or job loss. That is true even for highly skilled employees who may have served in their position for years.

For example, in a case that attracted national attention last year, Steve Stanton had served as the City Manager of Largo, Florida for 14 years, longer than any other City Manager in Largo’s history. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Stanton always received excellent job evaluations and was widely respected as one of the most effective city managers in the country. During his last evaluation, in September, 2006, he was given a large raise in recognition of his long tenure and accomplishments. But just seven months later, the Largo City Commission abruptly fired Mr. Stanton after a local news article disclosed that he was transgender and intended to transition from a man to a woman. The Commission refused to reconsider its decision. As a result, the City of Largo lost a valuable employee, and Stanton, who has subsequently changed her first name to Susan and is now living as a woman, has been unable to find another job.(2)

Unfortunately, there are many similar stories, most of which receive little or no public attention. One such story concerns Kathleen Culhane, a veteran who also served in the Iowa National Guard. Prior to her transition from male to female, Ms. Culhane had worked for several years as a research assistant at a state university in Iowa. She informed her supervisor that she was transgender and would be transitioning from male to female. Within weeks of that disclosure, Ms. Culhane was told she would be fired. She applied for positions in other departments, but no one was willing to hire a transgender person. Ms. Culhane lost her job and was forced to move to another state to find work, leaving behind her home of sixteen years.(3)

In another case, Anthony Barreto-Neto, an experienced and skilled police officer, was hired by a local police department in Hardwick, Vermont. Shortly thereafter, town officials found a website that described Mr. Barreto-Neto as "transsexual" and disclosed the fact that he had been born female and had undergone sex-reassignment several years earlier. The town officials communicated that information to senior police department personnel, who then subjected Mr. Barreto-Neto to severe harassment and dangerous workplace conditions, including issuing him faulty security equipment. In a subsequent investigation by the Vermont Attorney General, a former police chief testified that he was directed to make Mr. Barreto-Neto so uncomfortable that he would leave the force. Mr. Barreto-Neto was able to settle his case; however, the police department took the position that discrimination against a transgender person was not prohibited by law.(4) A few years later, the Vermont Legislature enacted a statewide law specifically prohibiting such discrimination.

As lawyers who specialize in this area are well aware, such stories of discrimination are painfully common. Employees who disclose their transgender status or who attempt to transition on the job risk being summarily dismissed, regardless of their qualifications or prior history.

State and local lawmakers throughout the country increasingly are addressing this type of discrimination. Currently 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws that specifically ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity: California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.(5) The first such statewide law was passed by Minnesota in 1993; however, most have been enacted in the past three to five years. Several other states are considering similar laws, and earlier this month, on June 3, 2008, the New York State Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act by a vote of 108 to 34.(6) More than 100 cities and counties have enacted local non-discrimination laws protecting transgender workers.(7) And many of the country’s employers, both large and small, have adopted non-discrimination policies that prohibit gender identity discrimination.(8)

Despite these advances, the current patchwork of local and state laws is inadequate to remedy the pervasive gender identity discrimination taking place across the country. Most transgender employees do not live in a jurisdiction that provides them with legal protection. In most states, a transgender worker who is fired or harassed for being transgender has no legal recourse.

Existing federal law, including Title VII, does not adequately protect transgender employees. As a logical matter, discrimination against a person for changing his or her sex should be recognized as discrimination based on sex, just as discrimination against a person for changing his or her religion or nationality is recognized as discrimination based on religion or nationality. Many legal scholars, as well as women’s rights and civil rights advocates, strongly support the view that the prohibition of sex discrimination in Title VII logically, and as a matter of principle, should prohibit transgender discrimination. In practice, however, most courts have rejected that view, creating a significant loophole in sex discrimination law. For decades, starting in the 1970s, courts summarily held that Title VII does not protect transgender people from discrimination.(9) Too often, those decisions not only denied protection, but spoke about transgender people in disparaging and demeaning terms. In recent years, some federal courts have begun to hold that, at least under some circumstances, Title VII may protect transgender
people who are discriminated against because they do not conform to gender sereotypes.(10)

The most notable example is the Sixth Circuit, which thus far is the only federal appellate court to issue such a decision.(11) This is a welcome development, and has provided a remedy for some transgender employees against some forms of gender identity discrimination. For the most part, however, courts have continued to apply Title VII narrowly to exclude transgender people.(12) Moreover, even the few courts, including the Sixth Circuit, that have held that Title VII may protect transgender people against discrimination based on gender stereotypes have stopped short of holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination simply because a person is transgender.

Thus, it is essential that Congress make clear that discrimination against transgender people because of their gender identity is against the law.

Thank you for your leadership in convening this historic forum and for the opportunity to testify. Growing up in my small Texas town, I could not have imagined a day like this. So many transgender people and their families around the country are waiting and watching, hoping that Congress will take action to address this harmful discrimination and to help ensure that transgender people have an equal opportunity to work.


(1) The representation of transgender people in virtually all professions is evidenced by the broad range of occupations that have been the subject of transgender employment discrimination actions. See, e.g., Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems, 777 A.2d 365 (N.J. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (medicine); Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 (1985) (airline industry); Broadus v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1585257 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2000) (insurance industry); Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc., 2006 WL 456173 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2006) (sales); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (firefighting); Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (2005) (law enforcement); Schroer v. Billington, 525 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2007) (terrorism research analysis).

(2) Deborah J. Vagins, "Working in the Shadows: Ending Employment Discrimination for LGBT Americans," at 17 (American Civil Liberties Union, Sept. 7, 2007).

(3) Id. at 19.

(4) Mr. Baretto-Neto was represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. For a description of his case, see http://www.glad.org/News_Room/press73-4-23-04.html.

(5) California (Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12926(p), 12940, 12955, Cal. Penal Code § 422.76); Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-401(7.5)); Illinois (775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-102, 5/1-103(O-1)); Iowa (Iowa Code § 216.6); Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4552, 4553(9-C)); Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 363A.03(44)); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. §10:5-3 et seq.); New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-2(Q)); Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 175.100, 659A.030); Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-6, R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-2.1(a)(8)); Vermont (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 144); Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040); and the District of Columbia (D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.11).

(6) A06584A, 231th Leg. (N.Y. 2008).

(7) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "Jurisdictions with Explicitly Transgender-Inclusive Non-Discrimination Laws"(April 2008), available at http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/all_jurisdictions_w_pop_4_08.pdf.

(8) Transgender Law & Policy Institute, "Employer and Union Policies Prohibiting Discrimination Against Transgender People,"available at
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/employer/index.htm.

(9) See, e.g., Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 (1985) (pilot did not have a cause of action under Title VII because, based on the plain meaning of the word "sex" and the legislative history of Title VII, sex does not include a person's transsexual status); Sommers v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 667 F.2d 748 (8th Cir. 1982) (Title VII does not encompass discrimination against transgender persons); Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977) (Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect transgender employees); James v. Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 478 (D. Kan. 1995) (same); Powell v. Read's, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 369 (D. Md. 1977) (same); Voyles v. Ralph K. Davies Medical Center, 403 F. Supp. 456 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (same), aff'd, 570 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1978); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1832, 2002 WL 31098541 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002) (male grocery store clerk denied Title VII protection when fired for wearing female clothing off the job).

(10) Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that transgender firefighter who was transitioning from male to female was discriminated under Title VII against based on failure to conform to masculine gender stereotypes); Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that transgender police officer who was transitioning from male to female was discriminated against under Title VII based on failure to conform to masculine gender stereotypes), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 2005); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 653 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment and holding that transgender plaintiff was entitled to prove her gender stereotyping claim).

(11) See Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); and Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 2005).

(12) See, e.g., Sweet v. Mulberry Lutheran Home, 2003 WL 21525058 (S.D. Ind. June 17, 2003) (holding that termination because of employee’s intent to change sex was not actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII); James v. Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 478 (D. Kan. 1995) (holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender people).

<<< GOP Rep. John Kline questions need for transgender protections | Home | Shannon Minter testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Shannon Minter testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; and Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Shannon Minter's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< | Home | Bill Hendrix testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Bill Hendrix testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, William H. Hendrix III Ph.D., chair of Dow Chemical's Gay, Lesbian, and Allies at Dow employee affinity group, testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Diego Sanchez testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is below. A PDF of his testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Written Statement of
Diego Miguel Sanchez

To the

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Room 2175
Rayburn House Office Building
June 26, 2008

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for adding my voice to those you hear today. My name is Diego Miguel Sanchez, and I am a 51-year old transsexual Latino man. I was born female and
transitioned to male. I grew up as an Army brat around the world, ending up in Augusta, Georgia, where my 80-year-old mother lives today.

When I was five, I told my parents that I was born wrong, that I felt like a boy inside. My mother showed me a magazine with Christine Jorgensen on the cover. She told me that she didn't know if there were other people like me – girls who felt like boys -- but that this woman was born a boy, felt like a girl and was able to become a woman later in life. Mom told me that by the time I grew up, it would be okay. From that time, my parents gently, privately, dually socialized me, but it was our secret, of sorts. My mom prepared me for life as girls are expected to be, and my dad taught me the lessons that boys needed to become men. It was rough – I had as many tutus as Tonka Trucks. But I could survive the former because of the latter. My parents always gave me hope, and my positive outlook on life, despite painful hardships, is the fruit of that loving labor. Mom was mostly right; it's almost okay for me these days.

I am grateful to be gainfully employed as the Director of Public Relations & External Affairs at AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts and AIDS Action Council in Washington, D.C. My college degree is in Journalism with a major in Public Relations from the University of Georgia. I am the only male Georgia letterman I know of who earned it on the women's tennis team. I was one of those Straight A, perfect attendance students. Dad always told me, "The harder you work, the luckier you get." I worked hard. I am lucky.

Because sex reassignment procedures weren't as developed in 1980 as today, I focused on work, hoping to make changes in the future. I spent nearly 20 award-winning years climbing the corporate ladder at several global companies including Coca-Cola, Burson-Marsteller, Holiday Inn, ITT Sheraton and Starwood Hotels.

I'm a loyal worker, a passionate leader and a man who had to wait, for fear of being fired, to be who I was always destined to be: Diego Miguel Sanchez, an honorable man. My career entailed navigating the newly named Glass Ceiling, probing limited opportunities for female professionals of color and trying to find a way to be a man while I looked like a woman in the workplace. It was heart-breaking and painful. But it was necessary. I did it because it was the only way I knew to save money to pay for sex reassignment, which I did later from my own savings.

I struggled with finding self-respect in a world that I never imagined would allow -- let alone accept or embrace -- someone like me, someone born seemingly wrong. I was an honest person who could be honest about everything except about me. I negotiated with my corporate colleagues for things that would moderately affirm me. It's the little things that seem like 'nothing' to others, that meant so much. It warmed my heart to receive a tie rather than a scarf as a company talisman. I asked people to use my first initial as my first name until I could change things medically and legally.

I have lived long enough to achieve those gains because I was able to do the ONE thing that military families are ordered to do when there’s a challenge: I sucked it up.

But when my head hits my pillow every night, I close my eyes and think about my friends who are transgender whose lives aren't easy. I miss my friend Alexander John Goodrum who took his own life. I feel guilty about my friend Ethan St. Pierre who lost his job just because he began his transition from female to male. I was the first transman he met, and he lost his job because he is brave and honest. It wasn't right. I still lose sleep over that injustice.

Because I work in public health, I know countless transgender people who are homeless, and I know these people by their names and character. These are good people who can't get work and whose lives are cast to the streets in large cities and small towns. It's a disgraceful injustice.

I flash my ID every day without concern. It's not questioned because I have had the luxury of personally paying to transition to male and aligning my IDs and myself. But I have friends whose licenses' and passports' gender don't match their identity, so they are disclosed as transgender the minute they show an ID, including when they try to get a job. I face these burdens when recruiting firms ask for my former names as part of their due diligence. It closes doors for me, and it limits the lives of my friends.

It's an injustice that we are ever evaluated for employment based on other people's comfort with our existence. I grew up in the South, where I wasn't allowed to swim in public pools because I'm not white. This experience today feels like a flashback.

I am before you today to affirm that transgender and transsexual people, including me, are equally human and deserve to be treated like other people. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Diego Miguel Sanchez, APR

<<< | Home | Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Diego Sanchez of the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of his testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Diego Sanchez's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Diego Sanchez testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Col. Diane Schroer testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing >>>

Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of her testimony is below. A PDF of her testimony can be found here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Statement for Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee
Hearing on Gender Identity
Tuesday, June 26, 2008

Thank you Chairman Andrews, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today at this historic hearing.

Many of my colleagues have asked about the phrase "gender identity" and why employment protections based on gender identity and expression ought to be included in any employment discrimination legislation Congress takes up. I'll do my best to
answer any lingering questions and clarify what drives many in the LGBT community to demand an inclusive approach to eliminating discrimination in the workplace – one that does not leave the smallest and most vulnerable part of our community behind.

As you may know, gender identity is a person's internal sense of his or her gender. In the vast majority of the population, an individual's gender identity and his or her birth sex "match." But for a small minority of people, gender identity and anatomical sex conflict. A common way for many transgender people to describe this feeling is to say something to the effect of being "trapped in the wrong body." Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same and transgender people may be heterosexual, lesbian, gay or bisexual.

There are thousands of transgender Americans who lead incredibly successful, stable lives, are dedicated parents, contribute immeasurably to their communities, their country. I personally know transgender people who work in fields as diverse as defense contracting, broadcasting, community organizing, the legal profession – I could go on. They have transitioned successfully, many with the full support of their employers.

Despite these successes, because an individual was born one sex and presents themselves to the world as another—or in a way that other people may think is inconsistent with how a man or a woman should present themselves—he or she can face many forms of discrimination.

Hate crimes against transgender Americans are tragically common. Transgender people also face discrimination in the mundane tasks of the everyday – trying to find housing, apply for credit, or even see a doctor...and, of course, in the focus of today’s hearing: trying to provide for themselves and their families.

Some of you know that I practiced law for a few years in a small general practice firm before I was elected to the Wisconsin Assembly. On occasion, I represented clients who were fired in violation of Wisconsin's 1982 non-discrimination law that added sexual orientation to our state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

During that time, I met a transgender woman who left a lasting impression, though she was never a client. This woman had been fired from a management position at a large local employer when she announced to her boss that she intended to transition. And because Wisconsin law gave her no legal recourse, she faced an impossible situation – and ended up moving to a different state. I remember a time in my own life, when I thought I had to choose between living my life with truth and integrity about who I am, as a lesbian, or pursuing the career of my dreams in public service.

Among the things that made me change my mind was Wisconsin's Non-Discrimination law that passed four years before I first ran for local office… as an out lesbian.

The importance of nondiscrimination laws cannot be overstated. Substantively, they provide real remedies and a chance to seek justice. Symbolically, they say to America, judge your fellow citizens by their integrity, character, and talents, not their sexual orientation, or gender identity, or their race or religion, for that
matter. Symbolically, these laws also say that irrational hate or fear have no place in our work place.

Today, 39% of Americans live in areas explicitly banning discrimination based on gender identity and expression and at least 300 major U.S. businesses now ban discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Corporate America and the American people are way ahead of the Congress in acknowledging the basic truth we hold to be self-evident... that all of us are created equal... and the laws of the land should reflect that equality. It is high time that America declare discrimination based on gender identity and expression unlawful.

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support your Committee's efforts to do just this. For the record, I support an inclusive bill which ensures that hard-working Americans cannot be denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise be discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

All of us who have had the honor of working in this institution know that one of the greatest things about America is that it is both a nation and an idea. Our American Dream promises that no matter where we start, no matter who we are, if we work hard, we will have the opportunity to advance. This Committee can help fulfill that promise.

Thank you.

<<< Rep. Barney Frank testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) testified before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee on transgender employment protections. The text of her testimony is here.

Other witnesses included Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

<<< Text of Rep. Tammy Baldwin's testimony at transgender protections hearing | Home | Rep. Robert Andrews opens transgender protections hearing >>>

Rep. Robert Andrews opens transgender protections hearing

On 26 Jun 2008, the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on transgender employment protections. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair. The subcommittee heard testimony from transgender citizens, Members of Congress, and business leaders on the necessity of including gender identity protections in civil rights laws.

Other witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.); Diego Sanchez; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D.; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti; and Shannon Minter, Esq.

<<< Rep. Tammy Baldwin testifies at transgender protections hearing | Home | Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) indicted >>>

House transgender hearing videos and transcripts available

On 26 Jun 2008, the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on transgender employment protections. The subcommittee heard testimony from transgender citizens, Members of Congress, and business leaders on the necessity of including gender identity protections in civil rights laws. The video archive and testimony transcripts will be made available in subsequent postings.

Witnesses included Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-04); U.S. Army Col. Diane Schroer (ret.), whose job offer from the Library of Congress was rescinded after she revealed that she was transitioning; Diego Sanchez of the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee; William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D., chair of Dow Chemical's Gay, Lesbian, and Allies at Dow employee affinity group; Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, who was fired from United Space Alliance, the prime contractor for the space shuttle program, after revealing that she was tranitioning; and Shannon Minter, Esq., legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-01) is the subcommittee chair.

The entire hearing can be viewed here. The video lasts 01:54:05.

<<< Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) indicted | Home | Delaware candidate blogs about Stonewall Dems event >>>

What's Tammy Baldwin up to?

Out Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) has been busy in the last couple of weeks. Besides fulfilling her regular duties in the U.S. House of Representatives, she also has:

♦ expressed concern about the "very bellicose tone this administration has sounded on Iran";
♦ voted to override Bush's veto of the Medicare bill to delay cuts in physician payments;
♦ stood in solidarity with the Dalai Lama;
♦ held a conference call with other prominent Wisconsin women to laud Sen. Barack Obama's plans for women and for the working class and to criticize Sen. John McCain's lack of leadership; and
♦ helped move forward improvements for Madison's Dane County Regional airport.

Sources: Kathleen Masterson, The Capital Times; Ellyn Ferguson, Green Bay Press-Gazette; John Nichols, The Capital Times; Steven Elbow, The Capital Times; Craig gilbert, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; and Channel 3000.

<<< Progressive jobs and internships available | Home | Olbermann cites Dole in "Worst Person" category >>>

Editorial says Baldwin is right to oppose Bush's budget

Wisconsin's Capital Times says that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02) is right to oppose Bush's budget, and that any Wisconsin congressional member who votes for it should be booted in November.

Now if only we could get the Hartford Courant to put the same bug in Lieberman's ear.

House unanimously agrees that marriage is "basic civil right"

U.S. House Resolution 431, introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02), commemorates the 1967 Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws against interracial marriage. The resolution states that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections". The House unanimously passed H. Res. 431 on Monday.

Rep. Baldwin presented a learned exposition of the history that led to the Court's decision, and an eloquent argument against bigotry and injustice.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA-05) gave the Republican response, repeatedly referring to marriage as being between "one man and one woman".

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6187&position=all"

RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEGALIZING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE -- (House of Representatives - June 11, 2007)

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 431) recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia legalizing interracial marriage within the United States.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 431

Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United States was enacted in Maryland in 1661;

Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State laws prohibiting interracial marriage punishable by imprisonment or hard labor;

Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as long as the punishments given to both white and black violators are the same;

Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed in the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial marriage "between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians";

Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v. Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of an individual "to marry, establish a home and bring up children";

Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between "white persons" and non-white persons;

Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned the State's anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming the first State high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional and making California the first State to do so in the 20th century;

Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v. Sharp that "a member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains";

Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision;

Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia--Mildred Jeter, a black/Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man--were married in Washington, DC;

Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime;

Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the State of Virginia;

Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, proclaimed that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.";

Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their convictions;

Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia;

Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and were therefore unconstitutional;

Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings' convictions;

Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival....... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.";

Whereas the opinion also stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.";

Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting interracial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia;

Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws nationwide;

Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes;

Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent;

Whereas the number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million; and

Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed "Loving Day" by cities and towns across the country in commemoration of Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia; and

(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States and in recognizing that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

GENERAL LEAVE

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431, a resolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages within the United States.

I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this resolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date of the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12.

In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their marriage a felony.

They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16 States.

In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against interracial relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under the 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival ..... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States' citizens of liberty without due process of law."

The opinion also stated that "the 14th amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's struggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage equality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's profound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this country have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of this decision.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument employed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his decision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately, after 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by a few to deny full marriage equality to everyone.

In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431 reaffirms the Loving court's recognition that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" at the heart of the 14th amendment protections.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this resolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements that she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case very well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps just add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been left, although I'm not convinced that there are many.

And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause of the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you see an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our Founders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, even though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout the entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.

Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple. None of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in fact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.

But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision that legislative classifications based on race were "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality," and further condemned Virginia's interracial marriage statute. And then the Court concluded: "There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause."

I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then I'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the landmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates government itself, and it also limits the power of government because traditional families are the fundamental units of our society.

Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father and a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our faith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we do, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated through those values of those children that we have and that we're so well-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to expand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.

But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of a union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that and to have government draw a distinction between people based upon their ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.

And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take this position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and what He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw distinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with some specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And because He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this case it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of God's image.

And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the Catholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of the family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony Pudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built in 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was built for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the editor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the floor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there where they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby sending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the street to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very day. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated congregation.

And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support of intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that, I support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a milestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of our Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all Americans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision on its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 431.

The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Hometown newspaper calls on Baldwin to join impeachment movement

The Capital Times, one of out Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin's hometown newspapers in Madison, Wisconsin, is calling on her to join the burgeoning impeachment movement against Bush and Cheney. Excerpts from the editorial:

Baldwin and impeachment

When U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin held a listening session in Fitchburg this week, the Madison Democrat got an earful from constituents asking her to sign on to various efforts to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, particularly a proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich that targets Cheney and that has attracted a number of co-sponsors....

...Baldwin should sign on with Kucinich and others who are backing Cheney's impeachment.