Mississippi is just one of several mostly rural states across the South with a dearth of resources for HIV and AIDS patients.

“Here, there’s no support group, no case management. There’s no daily reinforcement,” said Webb, 52, who has been HIV-positive for two decades.

Activists and the health care providers cite a need for more federal and state funding for outreach and drug assistance programs, as well as transportation for patients who have to travel from small towns to get care. That’s the message they’ll deliver when a top White House aide holds a rare community discussion Monday in Jackson.

Jeffrey S. Crowley, director of the White House’s Office of National AIDS Policy, said the meeting will highlight two realities of the national epidemic – the significant number of cases in the South, and how the disease disproportionately affects minorities.

The spread of the disease in the South has been attributed to numerous factors, including poverty and a social stigma that discourages many from getting tested or seeking treatment.

Patrick Packer, executive director of the Southern AIDS Coalition and a moderator for the discussion, wants to pose this question: “Why is it that the South is not getting its fair share of federal money based on the epidemic?”

The South leads the nation in the percentage of AIDS-related deaths. Yet, the region ranks last when it comes to overall federal dollars spent on an HIV-infected person at $6,565 a year, according to the coalition.

Forty-six percent of new AIDS cases in 2007 were in the South, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Twenty-five percent of the new cases were in the Northeast, and 17 percent in the West, two regions with the nation’s largest metropolitan areas that have for many years received most of the federal money.

However, the South stands to get more funding.

President Barack Obama signed the $2.2 billion Ryan White HIV/AIDS extension act last month, which continued funding for rural areas, putting the South second in federal money behind the northern region. Activists said it’s still not enough to keep pace with the new cases.

Debbie Konkle-Parker, a nurse practitioner in Jackson, said the act also added federal money to the South in 2006, but didn’t put rural areas on the same level as big cities.

“The inequities were pretty huge,” she said. “People were spending (Ryan White) money in New York City to do journal writing conferences, and in Mississippi, we couldn’t even get people to the clinics.”

Konkle-Parker said Mississippi has about eight public clinics to treat the majority of the 9,000 HIV patients in the state.

The current economic crunch has exacerbated the situation. Some states, like Kentucky, have cut funding for HIV/AIDS programs. The state had been contributing $250,000 a year prior to 2007, but now almost no state money is set aside for the AIDS Drug Assistance program, said Sigga Jagne, a program manager for the Kentucky Department of Health.

There are 1,277 enrolled in Kentucky’s program with 100 more on a waiting list, she said. Arkansas and Tennessee also now have waiting lists for the program, which is mostly federally funded but receives some state money. Packer said funding cuts have led to the waiting lists.

“We’re already disproportionately impacted by poverty and high rates of umemployment. It’s important for people who are HIV positive to be provided with life-sustaining drugs,” Jagne said.

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE

“EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT: ENSURING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS”

PRESENTED NOVEMBER 5, 2009

 Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the HELP Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice at this hearing to consider the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA), and to voice the Administration’s strong support for fully-inclusive legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Civil Rights Division, which I have the great honor to lead, serves as the conscience of the federal government. Our mission is clear: to uphold and protect the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable among us. We seek to advance this Nation’s long struggle to embrace the principle so eloquently captured by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that persons should be judged based on “content of their character,” and not on their race, color, sex, national origin, religion or any other irrelevant factors. Our civil rights laws – laws enforced by the Civil Rights Division – reflect and uphold this noble principle.

Just last month Congress passed and the President made history when he signed the first federal law that provides civil rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. I applaud you for recognizing the critical need for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and I assure you the Department of Justice is prepared to fulfill its new duties under that law. Its enactment filled a critical gap in our enforcement abilities.

Today, I come before you because passage of ENDA would provide us with the tool we need to fill another hole in our enforcement authority.

On an issue of basic equality and fundamental fairness for all Americans, we cannot in  good conscience stand by and watch unjustifiable discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals occur in the workplace without redress.

We have come too far in our struggle for “equal justice under the law” to remain silent or stoic when our LGBT brothers and sisters are still being mistreated and ostracized for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their skills or abilities and everything to do with myths, stereotypes, fear of the unknown, and prejudice.

No American should be denied a job or the opportunity to earn promotions, pay raises and other benefits of employment because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, which have no bearing on work performance. No one should be fired because he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Period. ENDA would provide much needed and long overdue federal protections for LGBT individuals, who still face widespread discrimination in workplaces across the Nation. For this reason, the passage of ENDA is a top legislative priority for the Obama Administration.

Broadly stated, ENDA would prohibit intentional employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, by employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations. Its coverage of intentional discrimination parallels that available for individuals under Title VII, and the principles that underlie this coverage have been well-established for decades. Under ENDA, we would share responsibility for its enforcement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Our role would be to challenge prohibited discrimination by state and local government employers.

The Civil Rights Division and other federal civil rights agencies regularly receive letters and inquiries from individuals all over the country complaining of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment. This ongoing discrimination and abuse takes many forms, ranging from cruel instances of harassment and exclusion to explicit denials of employment or career-enhancing assignments because of the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
It is painfully disappointing to have to tell these working men and women that,in the United States of America in 2009, they may well be without redress because our federal employment anti-discrimination laws either exclude them or fail clearly to protect them.

Many letters sadly describe the same kind of hostility, bigotry and even hatred that other groups faced for much of our history, and which Congress responded to by passing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

At the time the bill was debated, many of the same arguments that we hear today about ENDA – that it would open the floodgates to litigation, it would overburden employers and afford special rights to certain groups – were vociferously offered by the bill’s opponents.

No one would seriously contend that the parade of horribles predicted at the time ever became reality, and the 1964 Act, which, like ENDA, was introduced over multiple Congresses before it finally passed, has become a rock-solid foundation for our laws ensuring equality of opportunity in the workplace.

Throughout the decades that followed passage of the 1964 Act, we as a nation have recognized a need to attend to unfinished business in the fight for justice in the workplace.

Accordingly, Congress has expanded the scope of employment protections on several occasions, passing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The Obama Administration believes that ENDA must be the next step, and that this Act will be a worthy addition to its venerable predecessors.

NEXT PAGE: Eight million workers need protection

It is estimated that there are more than one million LGBT individuals working in state and local governments and just under seven million LGBT individuals employed in the private sector.

A large body of evidence demonstrates that employment discrimination against LGBT individuals remains a significant problem. The Williams Institute, a national research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy at the UCLA School of Law, conducted a year-long study of employment discrimination against LGBT individuals.

The study reviewed the numerous ways in which discrimination has been documented – in judicial opinions; in surveys of LGBT employees, state and local government officials; and in extensive evidence presented to Congress over the past fifteen years during which ENDA has been considered.

The study concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is widespread and persistent in terms of quantity, geography and occupations. The study focused primarily on discrimination against LGBT employees of state and local governments, but also reviewed broader surveys that indicate that the problem is equally widespread in the private sector.

To combat the widespread employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, some states have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, 29 states still provide no protections for lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals and 38 states provide no protection for transgender workers. State laws therefore leave large numbers of LGBT individuals without recourse for workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other bedrock civil rights laws recognize that protecting valued members of our workforce from discrimination should not be left to a patchwork of state and local laws that leaves large gaps in coverage. Discrimination in my home state of Maryland is just as wrong as discrimination in Montana.

As with those laws, federal legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity will help eradicate workplace discrimination that should be neither tolerated nor condoned.

To underscore the need for a federal statute, I would like to review the current scope of the law. 21 states – including Connecticut, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maryland – prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Another 12 states – including Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Rhode Island, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

A number of local jurisdictions contain similar protections in their local laws. For example, in my home state of Maryland, Baltimore City and Montgomery County have expanded the protections available under state law by banning employment discrimination against transgendered individuals.

In states where no remedies exist, LGBT employees have no opportunity to combat egregious workplace discrimination and harassment. The recent report of the Williams Institute documents a distressing number of such allegations. For example:

NEXT PAGE: A gay police officer is beaten by a coworker

• A police officer at the Pineville City Police Department in West Virginia reported regular harassment by his coworkers because of his sexual orientation, who deliberately sent him on calls without back-up. After learning of the officer’s sexual orientation, one coworker allegedly hit him across the face with a night stick, breaking the officer’s glasses and cutting his eye. The officer believes that his eventual discharge was based on his sexual orientation and not his job performance.
• An openly lesbian probation officer in Carroll County, Indiana, was allegedly denied promotion to chief probation officer because of her sexual orientation. A superior court judge allegedly told her that he would not promote her because she was a lesbian, that she was embarrassing the court by dating a woman, and that he had asked other court employees about her sexual orientation and personal life. A man with no prior probation experience was promoted to the position.
• An employee of the Virginia Museum of Natural History, a state agency, was allegedlyforced to resign because of his sexual orientation shortly after receiving a positive evaluation that otherwise would have resulted in a raise. The Executive Director of the Museum reportedly expressed concerns that the employee‘s sexual orientation would jeopardize donations to the museum. A Virginia appellate court dismissed his sexual orientation employment discrimination claim, holding that the governor‘s executive order prohibiting such discrimination did not create a private right of action.

These examples – which would fall within the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement authority under ENDA – are but a sampling of a disturbing number of reports of workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans in recent years. Unfortunately, the above LGBT employees have no opportunity to prove their claims, because they live in states that do not afford them redress.

The Williams Institute estimates that there are more than 200,000 LGBT employees in the federal workforce, yet, as in the case of state and local governments, we also lack strong statutory protection from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in this arena.

The Civil Service Reform Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of conduct not affecting job performance, has been interpreted by the Office of Personnel Management to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Executive Order 13087 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the Executive Branch.

But the administrative remedies available under both of these provisions are far more limited than those available to federal employees who experience other forms of discrimination, such a race, sex, or disability discrimination.

Moreover, although some courts have held that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination can protect LGBT persons from certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances, the extent of such protection varies significantly from court to court. Enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals in employment is needed to meaningfully and unambiguously prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and to give victims of such discrimination adequate remedies.

NEXT PAGE: Helping LGBT’s will help the economy

Preventing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and providing the victims of such discrimination with a means to protect their rights not only is a matter of basic fairness, it is also a matter of enlightened economic self-interest.

As the global marketplace becomes increasingly competitive, and as we work to revitalize and strengthen our economy, America cannot afford to waste talent or allow workplace bias and hostility to impede productivity, especially when many businesses operate in multiple cities and states.

There is no reason why, for example, LGBT employees working for a company in Wisconsin, which was the first state to prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals, should have their right to earn a living jeopardized or taken away if they are transferred across the lake to Michigan, which has not yet passed such a law.

Many of America’s top businesses already recognize that discrimination of any kind, anywhere, is bad for business and costs money. Indeed, hundreds of companies now bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s recently published Corporate Equality Index 2010, as of

September 2009, 434 (87%) of the Fortune 500 companies had implemented non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 207 (41%) had policies that include gender identity.

This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. Although most of the nation’s largest businesses have started addressing workplace fairness for LGBT employees, significant numbers of individuals still face discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and desperately need the nationwide protections and remedies that ENDA would provide.

I have explained why legislation like ENDA is sorely needed in the private and public sectors and why it makes good business sense. We look forward to working with you on legislation as it advances in the Congress and are currently reviewing the proposed legislation.

We may offer some technical comments on the bill. Now let me take a few moments to briefly dispel some misconceptions about the scope and impact of the legislation.

As you know, ENDA covers cases of intentional discrimination and explicitly precludes disparate-impact claims, does not permit the use of quotas or other forms of preferential treatment. Moreover, ENDA does not apply to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, tax-exempt private membership clubs, or religious organizations.

Indeed, ENDA contains a broad exemption for religious organizations and states that it does not apply to any corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII.

In addition, nothing in ENDA infringes on an individual’s ability to practice his or her faith, to hold and adhere to religious beliefs, or to exercise First Amendment rights of free speech on these or other issues. In addition, ENDA does not apply to the relationship between the federal government and members of the armed forces, and does not affect federal, state, or local rules providing veterans’ preferences in employment decisions.

 Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that ENDA will burden employers, unleash a flood of complaints that would threaten to overwhelm the EEOC or the Department of Justice, or clog the federal courts. On the contrary, the experience of states and local governments with sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination statutes for decades demonstrates that complaints under these statutes make up a relatively small portion of total employment discrimination complaints.

Moreover, the jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity have been able to implement and enforce these laws in an entirely workable manner. We fully expect that the same would hold true at the federal level.

I will conclude by noting what a great honor it is for me to testify about a legislative initiative of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who championed ENDA for more than a decade and who constantly reminded us that civil rights are the great unfinished business of our nation.

I can think of no better way to honor his life and work than to pass ENDA and provide sorely needed protections from arbitrary and unjustified discrimination to LGBT individuals in the workplace throughout our nation.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions.

He said, “The Administration strongly supports fully-inclusive legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Perez thanked Congress for passing the Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation and said that ENDA was just as crucial for law enforcement.

He said, “On an issue of basic equality and fundamental fairness for all Americans, we cannot in  good conscience stand by and watch unjustifiable discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals occur in the workplace without redress.”

Perez noted that the same objections brought against ENDA had been previously brought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and were found to be baseless.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act also prohibited discrimination in housing, public spaces, schools and government. ENDA is a much narrower bill and includes only employment.

Twenty-nine states currently provide no emoloyment protections for gays, lesbians and bisexuals; 38 states provide no protections for transgender workers.

 ”What about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs?” Robertson said.  “Not a chance!”

The blog Crooks and Liars criticized Robertson’s rationale towards religious persecution.  Writing for the blog, David Neiwert, in analyzing Robertson’s remarks, points out that “Robertson seems completely unaware that in fact religious bias is one of the categories of bias crime covered by hate-crime laws — and it has been from the very start, since these laws were first enacted on the state level in the early 1980s!”

In support of the new law, Mr. Neiwert writes: “Everyone interested in advancing civil rights in America and defending the nation’s minorities from the deprivation of their rights by terroristic thugs…have real cause to celebrate.”

President Obama signed the bill into law last Wednesday.

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts – the first state to allow gay marriage – over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”

“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans’ cemetery.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states – Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa – have legalized gay marriage.

AT SIGNING OF THE RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS

TREATMENT EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

Diplomatic Reception Room

11:58 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT:  We often speak about AIDS as if it’s going on somewhere else.  And for good reason — this is a virus that has touched lives and decimated communities around the world, particularly in Africa.  But often overlooked is the fact that we face a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic of our own — right here in Washington, D.C., and right here in the United States of America.  And today, we are taking two important steps forward in the fight that we face here at home.

It has been nearly three decades since this virus first became known.  But for years, we refused to recognize it for what it was.  It was coined a “gay disease.”  Those who had it were viewed with suspicion.  There was a sense among some that people afflicted by AIDS somehow deserved their fate and that it was acceptable for our nation to look the other way.

A number of events and advances over the years have broadened our understanding of this cruel illness.  One of them came in 1984, when a 13-year-old boy from central Indiana contracted HIV/AIDS from a transfusion.  Doctors assured people that Ryan White posed no risk to his classmates or his community.  But ignorance was still widespread.  People didn’t yet understand or believe that the virus couldn’t be spread by casual contact.  Parents protested Ryan’s attendance in class.  Some even pulled their kids out of school.  Things got so bad that the White family had to ultimately move to another town.

It would have been easy for Ryan and his family to stay quiet and to fight the illness in private.  But what Ryan showed was the same courage and strength that so many HIV-positive activists have shown over the years and shown around — show around the world today.  And because he did, we didn’t just become more informed about HIV/AIDS, we began to take action to fight it.

In 1990, the year Ryan passed away, two great friends and unlikely political allies, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, came together and introduced the Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act — the CARE Act — which was later named after Ryan.

In a few minutes, I’m going to sign the fourth reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.  Now, in the past, policy differences have made reauthorizations of this program divisive and controversial.  But that didn’t happen this year.  And for that, the members of Congress that are here today deserve extraordinary credit for passing this bill in the bipartisan manner that it deserves:  Tom Harkin and Mike Enzi in the Senate, we are grateful to you for your extraordinary work; Speaker Pelosi, who’s always leading the charge on so many issues; Frank Pallone, Jr., Joe Barton, Barbara Lee and Donna Christensen in the House, thank you for your extraordinary work — oh don’t worry, I’m getting to Henry.  (Laughter.)  Nancy is always looking out for members, but we’ve got a special section for Henry.

And Chairman Henry Waxman, who began holding hearings on AIDS in 1982, before there was even a name for AIDS, was leading here in Washington to make sure that this got the informed attention that it deserved and who led the House in passing the original Ryan White legislation in 1990.

I also want to acknowledge the HIV community for crafting a consensus document that did so much to help move this process forward.  Some of the advocates so important to this legislation are with us here today:  Ernest Hopkins from Cities Advocating for Emergency AIDS Relief; Frank Oldham, Jr., President and CEO of the National Association of People with AIDS; and Julie Scofield, Executive Director of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors.

And I’m especially honored that Ryan’s mother, Jeanne White-Ginder, is here today.  For 25 years, Jeanne had an immeasurable impact in helping ramp up America’s response to this epidemic.  While we lost Ryan at too young an age, Jeanne’s efforts have extended the lives and saved the lives of so many others.  We are so appreciative to you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

You know, over the past 19 years this legislation has evolved from an emergency response into a comprehensive national program for the care and support of Americans living with HIV/AIDS.  It helps communities that are most severely affected by this epidemic and often least served by our health care system, including minority communities, the LGBT community, rural communities, and the homeless.  It’s often the only option for the uninsured and the underinsured.  And it provides life-saving medical services to more than half a million Americans every year, in every corner of the country.

It’s helped us to open a critical front on the ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS.  But let me be clear:  This is a battle that’s far from over, and it’s a battle that all of us need to do our part to join.  AIDS may no longer be the leading killer of Americans ages 25 to 44, as it once was.  But there are still 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, and more than 56,000 new infections occur every single year.

Some communities still experience unacceptably high rates of infection.  Gay men make up 2 or 3 percent of the population, but more than half of all new cases.  African Americans make up roughly half of all new cases.  Nearly half of all new cases now occur in the South.  And a staggering 7 percent of Washington, D.C.’s residents between the ages of 40 and 49 live with HIV/AIDS — and the epidemic here isn’t as severe as it is in several other U.S. cities.

So tackling this epidemic will take far more aggressive approaches than we’ve seen in the past — not only from our federal government, but also state and local governments, from local community organizations, and from places of worship.

But it will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested; that has stopped people from facing their own illness; and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long.  A couple of years ago Michelle and I were in Africa and we tried to combat the stigma when we were in Kenya by taking a public HIV/AIDS test.  And I’m proud to announce today we’re about to take another step towards ending that stigma.

Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS.  Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.  We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.

If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it.  And that’s why, on Monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year.  Congress and President Bush began this process last year, and they ought to be commended for it.  We are finishing the job.  It’s a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it’s a step that will keep families together, and it’s a step that will save lives.  (Applause.)

We are continuing the work of crafting a coordinated, measurable national HIV/AIDS strategy to stem and suppress this epidemic.  I’m pleased to report that the Office of National AIDS Policy, led by Jeffrey Crowley, has already held eight in a series of 14 community discussions in cities across the country.  They’ve brought together faith-based organizations and businesses, schools and research institutions, people living with HIV and concerned citizens, gathering ideas on how to target a national response that effectively reduces HIV infections, improves access to treatment, and eliminates health disparities.  And we are encouraged by the energy, the enthusiasm, and great ideas that we’ve collected so far.

We can’t give Ryan White back to Jeanne, back to his mom.  But what we can do — what the legislation that I’m about to sign has done for nearly 20 years — is honor the courage that he and his family showed.  What we can do is to take more action and educate more people.  What we can do is keep fighting each and every day until we eliminate this disease from the face of the Earth.

So with that, let me sign this bill.  (Applause.)

The legislation provides care, treatment and support services to nearly half a million people, most of whom are low-income.

Obama also announced that the Department of Health and Human services has finally crafted a new regulation spelling the  end to the HIV Travel and Immigration Ban. The regulation goes into effect in January.

“We often speak as if AIDS is going on somewhere else. Often overlooked is that we face a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic of our own,” Obama said prior to the signing. He noted that early on, AIDS was considered a “gay disease, and those who had it were viewed with suspicion.”

This is the fourth re-authorization of the Ryan White bill, and Obama said it was the first time that the bill was not controversial or divisive, and passed with bi-partisian support.

There are 1.1 million living with HIV/AIDs in the United States; more than 56,000 cases are added each year. Obama noted that gay men, though they comprise 2 to 3 percent of the population, make up about half of all new cases, and that African-Americans make up almost half.

Obama said he hoped the lifting of the travel ban would help end the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS. He also said that he and his wife Michelle would be getting a second AIDS test soon.

For 22 years, United States had one of the most restrictive policies on the immigration and travel of HIV-positive people in the world. According to a historian writing for SHAFR.org:

“It compelled all non-citizens to attest that they were HIV-negative before being admitted to the United States for any reason – despite the obvious impossibility of enforcing this provision. At the same time, non-citizens living long-term in the United States were denied permanent resident categorization solely on basis of their HIV-positive status. While invoking its sovereign rights to control immigration and tourism, the U.S. government clung to policies suffused with the ignorance and bias toward HIV-positive people illustrated at the earliest stages of the AIDS pandemic.

“It disregarded the fact that for almost 25 years, it has been common medical knowledge that one cannot contract or transmit HIV casually. AIDS activists asserted that the HIV bar dissuaded immigrants unsure of their HIV status from getting tested; prompted HIV-positive immigrants not to seek to medical treatment until they had full-blown AIDS; and caused HIV-positive people seeking visas to lie on their applications and then enter the U.S. without their medications – situations posing exactly the threats to public health the 1987 ban aimed to prevent.”

In July 2008 as part of an AIDS bill,  Congress voted to restore the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to remove HIV from the immigration and visitor ban list. George W. Bush signed it into law – but HHS had not yet issued a revised rule until today, which meant that those with HIV and AIDS were still banned from the country.

AT RECEPTION COMMEMORATING THE ENACTMENT OF THE MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT

East Room

5:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, everybody.  Thank you so much, and welcome to the White House.

There are several people here that I want to just make mention of because they helped to make today possible.  We’ve got Attorney General Eric Holder.  (Applause.)  A champion of this legislation, and a great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.  (Applause.)  My dear friend, senior Senator from the great state of Illinois, Dick Durbin.  (Applause.)  The outstanding Chairman of Armed Services, Carl Levin.  (Applause.)  Senator Arlen Specter.  (Applause.)  Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Representative John Conyers.  (Applause.)  Representative Barney Frank.  (Applause.)  Representative Tammy Baldwin.  (Applause.)  Representative Jerry Nadler.  (Applause.)  Representative Jared Polis.  (Applause.)  All the members of Congress who are here today, we thank you.

Mr. David Bohnett and Mr. Tom Gregory and the David Bohnett Foundation — they are partners for this reception.  Thank you so much, guys, for helping to host this.  (Applause.)

And finally, and most importantly, because these were really the spearheads of this effort  – Denis, Judy, and Logan Shepard. (Applause.)  As well as Betty Byrd Boatner and Louvon Harris  – sisters of James Byrd, Jr.  (Applause.)

To all the activists, all the organizers, all the people who helped make this day happen, thank you for your years of advocacy and activism, pushing and protesting that made this victory possible.

You know, as a nation we’ve come far on the journey towards a more perfect union.  And today, we’ve taken another step forward.  This afternoon, I signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  (Applause.)

This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade.  Time and again, we faced opposition.  Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed.  Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit.  But the cause endured and the struggle continued, waged by the family of Matthew Shepard, by the family of James Byrd, by folks who held vigils and led marches, by those who rallied and organized and refused to give up, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation — (applause) — and all who toiled for years to reach this day.

You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear.  You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts.  And you understand how necessary this law continues to be.

In the most recent year for which we have data, the FBI reported roughly 7,600 hate crimes in this country.  Over the past 10 years, there were more than 12,000 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation alone.  And we will never know how many incidents were never reported at all.

And that’s why, through this law, we will strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.  We will finally add federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.  (Applause.) And prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes.  Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.  No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability.

At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people.  This is about whether we value one another — whether we embrace our differences, rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.  It’s hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead.  It’s hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who’d offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

But we sense where such cruelty begins:  the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity — the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.

We have for centuries strived to live up to our founding ideal, of a nation where all are free and equal and able to pursue their own version of happiness.  Through conflict and tumult, through the morass of hatred and prejudice, through periods of division and discord we have endured and grown stronger and fairer and freer.  And at every turn, we’ve made progress not only by changing laws but by changing hearts, by our willingness to walk in another’s shoes, by our capacity to love and accept even in the face of rage and bigotry.

In April of 1968, just one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, as our nation mourned in grief and shuddered in anger, President Lyndon Johnson signed landmark civil rights legislation.  This was the first time we enshrined into law federal protections against crimes motivated by religious or racial hatred — the law on which we build today.

As he signed his name, at a difficult moment for our country, President Johnson said that through this law “the bells of freedom ring out a little louder.”  That is the promise of America.  Over the sounds of hatred and chaos, over the din of grief and anger, we can still hear those ideals — even when they are faint, even when some would try to drown them out.  At our best we seek to make sure those ideals can be heard and felt by Americans everywhere.  And that work did not end in 1968.  It certainly does not end today.  But because of the efforts of the folks in this room — particularly those family members who are standing behind me — we can be proud that that bell rings even louder now and each day grows louder still.

So thank you very much.  God bless you and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

There was a bill signing at a wooden desk set up in the East Room, with the media invited, followed by a reception for joyous, champagne-sipping supporters and an address to them, again, from the East Room.

Obama was keeping a campaign promise to gays and lesbians by putting his signature on a bill to include violence against homosexuals in federal hate crimes law.

Of several such commitments to gay and lesbian supporters, it’s the first one he’s kept. Other promises are either pending or stalled entirely, proving a source of continued dismay for gay and lesbian advocates who worked to help him get elected.

As a candidate, Obama promised to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bars homosexuals from serving openly in the military. He pledged to work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how states, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also promised to outlaw job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Nine months into his term, those promises aren’t close to being met.

While clearly pleased by Wednesday’s signing ceremony, which was attended by many members of Congress who came to witness the fruits of a decade of effort, Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said there is still a lot of work to be done.

“We look forward to the days ahead when we will join together again to celebrate full equality and recognition of our community, including in employment, the military and in the full recognition of our families,” Carey said.

The expanded law now also covers crimes motivated by gender identity or disability.

“No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability,” Obama said, referring to Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., for whom the law is named.

Shepard was a gay Wyoming college student murdered in 1998; Byrd was a black man chained to a pickup truck by three white men and dragged to his death in east Texas that year.

Obama’s relationship with gay activists has been rocky since his election. They objected to the participation of evangelist Rev. Rick Warren in Obama’s inauguration because of Warren’s support for repealing gay marriage in California. Obama responded by having Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the denomination’s first openly gay bishop, participate at another event.

As president, Obama hasn’t taken any concrete steps to urge Congress to overturn the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He restated the pledge this month in a speech at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Obama said, offering neither a timetable nor specifics on how it would be done. He noted that legislation is pending in the House, and that he is working with the Pentagon and Congress on ending the policy.

“We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country,” he said. “We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.”

On job security for gays and lesbians, Obama said “we’re pushing hard” for it because “nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay.” He said “it’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it.”

Obama also pledged during the campaign to work for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. But administration lawyers did the opposite, defending the law in a court brief. White House aides said the lawyers were only doing their jobs by supporting an existing law.

Obama has expanded some federal benefits to same-sex partners, but not health benefits or pension guarantees. He has allowed State Department employees to include their same-sex partners in certain embassy programs available to opposite-sex spouses.

Obama will give remarks on the new law at 6 p.m. EST.

 The new law gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. 

The legislation was added as a provision to the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act earlier this Summer.  For a comprehensive retrospective and historical overview of hate crimes advocacy visit: www.LoveConquersHate.org.

“When Dennis and I started calling 10 years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long,” said Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother and the president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board of Directors.

 “The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged,” she said. “We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly.” 

The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 28, 2009 by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), among others. On Oct. 8,  the United States House of Representatives voted 281-146 in favor of a joint House-Senate “conference report” on a defense authorization measure that also included provisions that would expand the definition of federal hate crimes to cover attacks based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and military service. The Senate then passed the bill late last week with a decisive 68-29 vote.

“This law honors our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short because of hate,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “Today’s signing of the first major piece of civil rights legislation to protect LGBT Americans represents a historic milestone in the inevitable march towards equality. ”

 ”This law sends a loud message that perpetrators of hate violence against anyone will be brought to justice,” said Solmonese.
 
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act honors the memory of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student brutally murdered in an act of hate violence in 1998, and James Byrd, an African-American man who was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas, in 1998.  
 
 “We appreciate everyone who worked so hard on this bill.  My son was taken at such an early age and we hope this law will help prevent other families from going through what we experienced,” said Stella Byrd, mother of James Byrd.  “Even though we’re different colors and different sexual orientations or gender identities, God made us all and he loves us all.”
 
The new law also provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.