[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3801-H3813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, EQUALITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 312, MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE RESERVATION
REAFFIRMATION ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 987,
MARKETING AND OUTREACH RESTORATION TO EMPOWER HEALTH EDUCATION ACT OF
2019
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 377
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity,
and sexual orientation, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 312) to
reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources
now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
987) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
to provide for Federal Exchange outreach and educational
activities. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed 90
minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-14 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
such further amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 377, providing for consideration of
H.R. 5 under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided
and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 312 under a
closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
Lastly, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 987 under
a structured rule, with 90 minutes of general debate, 60 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor. Twenty-seven amendments are made in
order.
Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for three
important pieces of legislation: H.R. 987, H.R. 312, and H.R. 5.
H.R. 987 is the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription
Drug Costs Act, a package of several bills, many of them bipartisan,
that went through the House Energy and Commerce Committee under regular
order. This bill combines three key bills to lower drug costs by
promoting generic competition and four key bills to strengthen
healthcare, reverse the sabotage of the ACA by this administration with
respect to marketing and outreach, and rescind the Trump
administration's efforts to promote junk plans that lack the
protections of the Affordable Care Act.
The American people are justifiably demanding action by Congress to
make prescription drugs more affordable. Prices are so high that recent
data show 24 percent of Americans didn't fill a prescription in the
past year due to high costs.
My constituents have been vocal in demanding action on drug pricing,
patients like Bill, a senior with diabetes who attends my church,
parents like Sarah with children who have special health needs. Folks
like these need help now.
This package would lower costs by banning anticompetitive practices
that large drug companies employ to keep generics off the market.
This bill will also tackle many of the reasons we have seen
enrollment
[[Page H3802]]
through the Affordable Care Act decline in recent years.
Since coming into office, President Trump has cut paid advertising
and outreach efforts for healthcare exchanges by 90 percent. This
wanton political decision to cut these efforts is but one part of the
administration's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
Furthermore, lack of transparency on the part of Health and Human
Services around funding levels for outreach plan enrollment rates and
other vital statistics has created an information vacuum on the
performance of the ACA.
Greater transparency is required in order for Congress to hold the
administration accountable for its efforts to defund education and
outreach for the Affordable Care Act.
Second, we have H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation
Reaffirmation Act. This important bill recognizes and respects the
Tribal sovereignty of the Mashpee Wampanoag, a Tribe that has inhabited
New England for over 12,000 years and, in fact, welcomed the Pilgrims
to the new world.
This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Massachusetts among
other Tribal nations and with Tribal allies in Congress. Had President
Trump not tweeted about this bill last week, it would have likely
passed on suspension and been sent to the Senate for consideration. The
members of this Tribe cannot wait any longer for recognition, and we
need to pass this critical legislation without further delay.
Finally, Madam Speaker, this is a week that will be remembered in our
history books because, at long last, this body is taking up
consideration of the Equality Act. Forty-five years ago this week, the
legendary Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the
Equality Act, a bill that will give full legal protections to LGBTQ
people all across our country.
This version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result
of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil
rights laws to provide protections from discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life:
employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services,
federally funded programs, and jury service.
Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services
covered in current law to include retail stores, services such as
banks, legal services, and transportation services. These important
updates will strengthen existing protections for everyone.
The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a
man who is a history maker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ
Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee,
Congressman David Cicilline from Rhode Island.
{time} 1230
Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left
and the right, religious groups, and myriad civil rights groups to make
sure that the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality
while doing nothing to undermine existing civil rights protections for
other marginalized groups.
The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employers in
the country, our largest labor unions, and hundreds of organizations,
including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference for Civil and
Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, the Episcopal
Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ.
Most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming
majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans
support legislation like the Equality Act to protect LGBTQ people
against discrimination in employment, housing, and public
accommodations.
Rarely does Congress have the chance to take up legislation so
clearly supported by our constituents. That is probably why, since the
day that Congressman Cicilline first introduced this version of the
Equality Act in 2015, it has always earned bipartisan support and
currently has Republican cosponsors in both the House and the Senate.
The clear majority of both this Chamber and the American people
recognize that, for far too long, LGBTQ people have faced
discrimination with no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute
that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and especially
transgender women of color, face discrimination across this country.
This is a personal issue for me. It has been personal since my baby
sister came out to me about 40 years ago.
For many people in this country, that is when the fight hits home. It
gets personal when someone you love says, ``This is who I am,'' and you
know and value that person, and you will do whatever you can to make
sure that your loved one can live life to the fullest, free from hate
and discrimination.
I am sad to say that my home in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is
one of the 30 States that defies the will of its people by not having
legal protections for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister, someone
who put her life on the line for our country when she served in the
armed forces, could drive across State lines and lose protections is
heartbreaking.
The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates uniform
nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that being
transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move home
to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil rights
protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the
security and stability that comes from knowing that if they face
discrimination, they have legal recourse.
It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The
Equality Act does not impinge on religious liberty. Religious liberty
is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious
organizations are able to prefer their own members and their version of
morality in hiring for religious positions such as ministers, rabbis,
or schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that.
The Equality Act clarifies what has long been held, though, that
religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws.
Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to
sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act, LGBTQ
families will be protected from discrimination, regardless of its
motivation.
Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often across this
country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. They hired a
babysitter to look after their young children and are hoping to have a
relaxing night out. They are seated and looking at the menu when the
manager comes over and tells them they have to leave. They are not
welcome there.
This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis
across this country. In 30 States, the couple would have no legal
recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg.
Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing. Qualified
and high-performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from
their jobs. LGBTQ young people face rejection, homelessness, and
discrimination in school, denying them an education. These injuries
compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence.
The impact is felt hardest by transgender women of color, who
confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender-identity
discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination can
even be deadly, as it was for Shantee Tucker, a transgender woman of
color from Philadelphia who was murdered last fall.
The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an
equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection
have ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are
succeeding, despite discrimination.
In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, serves in
the Governor's cabinet as secretary for health. Mara Keisling, a
Pennsylvania native, is the founder and executive director of the
National Center for Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights
protections. Danica Roem, the first transgender State legislator,
serves in the Virginia House of Delegates. LaLa Zannell is fighting
violence in New York City. Raffi Freedman-Gurspan was the first openly
transgender White House staffer. Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, who was at
Stonewall, has spent her life fighting to end
[[Page H3803]]
the over-incarceration of transgender people. The list goes on and on.
I am proud that the House will finally act to provide Federal
protections to LGBTQ people with passage of the Equality Act. The fight
for equal rights is far from over, but I am proud to be part of a
majority that prioritizes equal treatment for all of its
citizens, regardless of whom they love.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
We, Madam Speaker, are here today on three very different pieces of
legislation, which, unfortunately, makes this a complicated rule. One
of our bills concerns civil rights, one concerns healthcare, and one
concerns Native Americans. I will move through each of these bills
relatively quickly, and then I want to address the process we followed
to get here today.
The first bill, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, is a complicated and complex
piece of legislation that would make sweeping changes to our Nation's
civil rights laws, if enacted. In general, the bill adds the terms
``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' to the list of protected
classes under the Civil Rights Act, joining classes like race, gender,
religion, and national origin.
As I noted in our hearing yesterday, most Republicans in the House
will oppose this bill not because we do not believe that all people
should receive equal treatment under the law but because we have real
concerns about how this bill will work in practice. A term like
``gender identity'' has such a vague definition that even proponents of
the bill do not agree on exactly what the term means.
That should cause legislators to be especially thoughtful and provide
clarity about what the term means and how the law will be applied. But
we have not done so here.
Republicans have raised numerous questions about how this bill will
work in practice. Will female athletes in junior high, high school, and
college be forced to compete in women's athletics against competitors
who were born biologically male? Will female sexual assault victims be
forced to share vulnerable same-sex spaces like locker rooms and
dressing rooms with other individuals who were born biologically male?
And since the legislation appears to allow people to define their own
gender identity, will it allow people to shift back and forth between
gender as it suits them?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are real concerns that we
have raised, with good reason, throughout the process.
H.R. 5 is known as the Equality Act, and I know every Member of the
House, Republican and Democrat, agrees with the principle that all
people should be treated equally under the law. But even as we strive
toward that goal, when we are dealing with legislation of this
magnitude, we must consider how the bill will work in practice.
Unfortunately, I don't think my friends in the majority have clear
answers to very legitimate questions. Last night, during debate at the
Rules Committee, our concerns were dismissed as we were told that the
courts and administrative bureaucrats would sort out these unanswered
issues. That is simply unacceptable.
Why would we want any ambiguity when it comes to a person's civil
rights? We should be very clear about congressional intent, and the
only way to do that is to write a law the way you intend for it to be
carried out. Sadly, this bill falls well short of that certainty.
The second bill, H.R. 987, is actually seven bills: three genuinely
bipartisan bills addressing prescription drug costs and four partisan
and controversial bills addressing ObamaCare.
As I pointed out last night in our hearing, I don't particularly
understand what the majority is trying to accomplish here. There are
three bills that are all bipartisan that could easily progress to
becoming law. I am even a cosponsor of one of those bills. Yet, I have
to vote against the entire package because I do not support the
partisan and controversial bills attached by Democrats.
Madam Speaker, at some point, the majority needs to decide if they
are here to score political points or if they are here to govern. If
they want to continue scoring rhetorical victories, then by all means,
they should keep doing what they are doing, keep putting up partisan
bills that won't go anywhere in the Senate and won't be signed into
law, keep putting up messaging bills for the purpose of signaling to
their primary voters, and keep spending their days engaged in show
votes that won't ever improve the lives of those they were elected to
represent.
If they want to govern for the American people, then the majority
must move forward with real legislation that can get real support here,
in the Senate, and at the White House.
We had the chance to do that with this package. The majority chose
not to do so. I think that is a real missed opportunity for us, both as
an institution and as a country.
Finally, the third bill, H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
Reservation Reaffirmation Act, is a matter I want to discuss at some
length because I think there has been, frankly, a lot of misinformation
put out about this particular piece of legislation.
The Mashpee Wampanoag is a federally recognized Tribe based in
Mashpee, Massachusetts. H.R. 312 would simply reaffirm the taking of
land into trust for the benefit of this Tribe.
When the Federal Government takes land into trust for a Tribe, it is
reserving that land for the benefit of the Tribe and Tribal members
both now and into the future. It ensures that the Tribes have a home,
that they have a stable place to build communities and to marshal their
resources and conduct business. It ensures that the land that was
promised to Tribes, and that was held by those Tribes, in many cases
for many centuries, remains in Tribal hands.
Holding land in trust is a commitment made to Tribes by the Federal
Government. It affirms Tribes will continue to be able to exercise
sovereignty over their own land. That is really all this issue is about
today, whether or not the Mashpee Wampanoag will be able to exercise
their own sovereignty over their own land.
Unfortunately, some who oppose this bill are doing so because they
are viewing this issue through a purely political lens rather than what
our own Constitution says about Tribal sovereignty. This isn't a bill
about a particular use for the land, and it isn't a bill about
particular Members of this institution or the Senate. Instead, this is
a bill about keeping Federal promises to Tribes.
Our country hasn't always kept those promises, and we have an
opportunity today to step up and make clear that regardless of what
happened in the past, today, the Federal Government keeps its promises
to Tribes, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Before I close, I would like to make a couple of points about the
process this week, particularly on the Equality Act and the healthcare
issue.
On the Equality Act, 35 amendments were proposed. I thought that
many, if not most, of these should have been considered on the floor.
Yet, in the final rule, not one amendment was made in order, and we are
considering this bill under a closed rule.
The majority is choosing not to make in order many amendments that
deserve our consideration on the floor, like Ms. Holmes Norton's
amendment to clarify that Washington, D.C., residents cannot be
excluded or disqualified from jury service based on sexual orientation
or gender identity, or the bipartisan amendment that would restore the
application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to this bill, or
Representative Johnson's commonsense amendment clarifying that nothing
in the act should be construed as to deny parents the right to be
involved in their minor child's medical care. These are all deserving
amendments that should have been heard on the floor, and yet the
majority chose to make precisely none in order.
On H.R. 987, the majority went in a different direction. In total, 51
amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and 15 of those were
sponsored by Republicans. Yet with today's rule, 27 amendments were
made in order, but just one amendment was made in order that was
sponsored by a Republican, along with one bipartisan
[[Page H3804]]
manager's amendment--one out of 15. All the remaining amendments, 92
percent of those made in order, were sponsored solely by Democrats.
Madam Speaker, I think we can do better than that.
Last week, I reminded the House that when my party was in charge of
the last Congress, we went out of our way to make minority and
bipartisan amendments in order. Forty-five percent of all amendments
made in order in the last Congress were sponsored solely by Democrats,
while a further 17 percent were bipartisan.
As of today's rule, the stats are looking much worse for the current
majority. Seventy-three percent of all amendments made in order were
solely sponsored by Democrats through May 14. Thirteen percent are
bipartisan. Just 14 percent were sponsored by Republicans.
We had an opportunity today, particularly on H.R. 5 and H.R. 987, to
take steps toward remedying this issue.
I must continue to encourage my good friend, and he is my good
friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, to work with us to make
more bipartisan and minority amendments in order and to ensure that all
Members, regardless of party, have an opportunity to be heard on the
floor, as he has often promised.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I would just note that, with respect to
H.R. 5, we had regular order. H.R. 5, the Equality Act, went through
the Committee on the Judiciary. It had a hearing, and then we also had
a markup. This is a new process, apparently, since the last Congress.
And then, of course, we had the Rules hearing last night.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
for her leadership and for the time.
Today is, indeed, a historic day. It is a day that we will say to the
LGBTQ community across the land that you matter, that you count, that
the Equality Act will be the new law of this country. It is a basic
heralding of human decency.
America stands at a crucial crossroads in this generation's fight for
civil rights. We should not have to remind our Republican colleagues
that no one should ever be discriminated against because of who they
are, yet here we are.
Without the explicit Federal protection provided in the Equality Act,
the LGBTQ community is at risk of being marginalized, or worse, in the
workplace, housing, education, and even in the military.
This administration is seeking to make our LGBTQ families and friends
not just second-class citizens, but to deny them the fundamental
American rights etched into our Constitution.
Congress cannot erase hatred with legislation, but Congress has an
obligation to lead, to stamp out discrimination wherever it exists.
We can and must all rise for the LGBTQ community.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself a few seconds to respond to
my friend from Pennsylvania.
We don't consider the markup in committee a very good markup. Only
four amendments were considered, none were accepted, and, frankly, a
number of Members seeking recognition for amendments were not
recognized. So to think that this was anything other a train moving
through a station, I think, is to mischaracterize how that particular
markup worked.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, fellow member of the Rules
Committee, and also a leading member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Madam Speaker, you can imagine my surprise this morning checking the
email and the Health 202, an email put out by The Washington Post--The
Washington Post, for crying out loud--and here is the headline:
``Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan
Drug Pricing Bills.'' They go on to say: ``ObamaCare battles threaten
even the most bipartisan healthcare efforts on Capitol Hill.''
What a strange turn of events.
So here we have a rule today that will allow a bill to be brought to
the floor where the Democrats are using bipartisan drug pricing bills
to pay for partisan politics.
Look, I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Rules
Committee, so I am on the oldest and second oldest committees in the
United States House of Representatives. We worked in a bipartisan
manner to ensure that the BLOCKING Act, the CREATES Act, and the
Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act would deliver drug
pricing solutions to Americans.
In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that keeps the three
drug policies and uses the savings--some $5 billion from those
policies--to pay for bipartisan public health priorities.
I also introduced the standalone bill, H.R. 2700, if you are keeping
score at home. This is the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and
Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities
Act. H.R. 2700 couples the bipartisan drug pricing policies with
reauthorization of programs such as community health centers, special
diabetes programs, and the National Health Service Corps.
Every Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a
cosponsor of H.R. 2700, signifying the broad Republican support for
both the drug pricing and the public health priorities.
Look, it is pretty clear: You can say that it is more important to
have a navigated program that would never pass any cost-benefit
analysis; you can say it is more important to have an earmark for the
State of New Jersey to set up an ObamaCare exchange; or you can say it
is more important to reauthorize Community Health Centers.
Reauthorizations are tough. We did multiple reauthorizations in the
last Congress, and they are difficult to get across the line because so
many people have so many opinions.
All of these programs are going to expire in September, and we have
taken no activity towards reauthorization in the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
These reauthorizations, again, take a substantial amount of time. The
clock is ticking, and we should act as soon as possible.
Again, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order, but I do
encourage Members to look at H.R. 2700, a good bill. For this morning,
I think The Washington Post had it right.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the time.
So maybe it is just me. You know, I am still suffering from trauma,
having served in the minority under my Republican friends for 8 years
where, routinely, we were given a process where we were almost always
shut out.
In the last Congress, we had a record-breaking 103 closed rules on
major bills--completely closed. You can't amend it. And they talk about
all the amendments they made in order, but they don't talk about the
thousands they did not make in order.
Now, look, I don't want them to feel the same way that I did in the
minority. I want them to not have to go through the trauma that so many
of us went through where we were routinely shut out. And that is why,
when we came up with the Rules package, we did things like required
that bills had to have hearings in committees of jurisdiction before
they came to the Rules Committee, that they had to have markups in the
committee of jurisdiction before they came to the Rules Committee.
I mean, they routinely brought legislation to the floor where
committees of jurisdiction never had a hearing, never had a markup.
They mysteriously appeared. They would come to the Rules Committee;
they would get a closed rule; and then we were forced to vote up or
down on it.
So I don't really appreciate being lectured on process. Yes, we need
to do better, and, yes, I understand that my
[[Page H3805]]
Republican friends want more amendments in order, but let's not forget
why we are here today. We are here to pass a historic civil rights
bill. We are here to pass the Equality Act.
When I look at the amendments that were brought to the Rules
Committee, amendment after amendment would target trans Americans and
carve out ways for discrimination to continue. This is on a bill that
is meant to eliminate discrimination. They were trying to enshrine
discrimination. They were trying to weaken the Civil Rights Act. And,
quite frankly, I think most of us felt: You know what? We are not going
to allow that to happen.
That is not an appropriate use of the rules of the House, to try to
take away the rights of people in this country, to try to allow
discrimination to continue.
We believe too strongly in the ideals of the Civil Rights Act to risk
letting it be transformed into another weapon for division and
discrimination. I mean, we listened to groups like the National Urban
League, the National Action Network, the NAACP, the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and others that asked us to give
this bill a straight up-or-down vote.
And let's be clear, Madam Speaker, a good process is about more than
just amendments, as I mentioned. This bill had a hearing, and it had a
markup.
On the healthcare bill that we are going to deal with, it is about
lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
My friends on the other side of the aisle spent what seemed like an
eternity trying to rip away healthcare protections for people, I mean,
bringing up one bill after another after another to the floor that
never went through regular order, that would literally take away
protections from people with preexisting conditions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts
an additional 1 minute.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, they did nothing to lower the cost of
prescription drugs.
Then we had an election in November, and the big issue was
healthcare. People didn't want to have their healthcare protections
ripped away. And now, all of a sudden, they are converts, and they say
they want to protect people's healthcare and expand healthcare
protections.
The bottom line is this: We are not perfect all the time, and we need
to do better, but I believe that we are improving the process. I look
forward to working with the gentleman, the ranking member from
Oklahoma, to try to find ways forward.
But on the legislation here today that we are going to consider, this
is important legislation. This is historic legislation. Quite frankly,
every Member of this House who wants to end discrimination in this
country ought to support the Equality Act, and every Member of this
House who wants to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs ought
to support that bill as well.
Madam Speaker, with that, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for just a few minutes to respond to my good friend, the chairman. I
want to tell you, there is nobody I hold in higher regard in the House
of Representatives than Chairman McGovern, nobody I consider a better
personal friend, nobody I consider a more responsible Member.
On this, we disagree. The gentleman is right, neither side is
perfect. In this case, we are going to bring attention to this
amendment issue until we see results. That is precisely what my friend
did when he was in the minority, and there are some times we should
have listened to him and we did not.
In this case, I think the imbalance is so egregious that we are going
to continue to make that case until we see a change. Maybe we won't.
Hopefully we will, because I know my friend approaches this with good
intentions.
Secondly, I would say this bill was so important, the Equality Act,
it ought to have amendments. That is the point. That is how you build
consensus. I think they are missing the opportunity to get a lot of
people who would support the basic concept that they are trying to
advance.
And, finally, on the drug bill, I have just got to be honest with
you. When they had a chance to pass something that would work and chose
to bundle it with something that they knew couldn't pass, that makes me
wonder how serious they are about dealing with that problem.
But, hopefully, we will get an opportunity to deal with that again.
And that is an area we know we can work together on. We have proved it
in committee.
So, with that, I look forward to continuing to work with my good
friend, the chairman. I know that we will occasionally have
differences. That is what this is all about. We will work those
differences out.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my very good friend, who also is a
distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
and to the underlying legislation, H.R. 5.
Contrary to what has just been said on the floor, this bill does not
end discrimination. In fact, the Equality Act imposes top-down,
government-led discrimination against all Americans who hold a
differing view of human sexuality and gender.
This grossly misnamed bill punishes everyday citizens, silences free
speech and viewpoint disagreements, and discriminates against people of
faith. In reality, this bill should be called the women's inequality
act.
The policies of H.R. 5 have already been used to trample female
athletics, eliminate safe spaces for women, harm children, terminate
parental rights, and undermine the free exercise of religious freedom.
The legislation also provides for a universal right to abortion,
compromises taxpayers' safeguards against funding abortion, and
eliminates conscious protections for healthcare providers that do not
want to participate in an abortion.
As a former track coach, I am deeply committed to providing women and
girls with a level playing field. Title IX, however, becomes irrelevant
under the women's inequality act.
Vulnerable women seeking haven in homeless women's shelters will be
revictimized under H.R. 5. This is already happening.
In California, women who were sexually harassed in the shower by a
biological male were threatened with expulsion from the women's
shelter.
In Alaska, a women's shelter is being sued for sending a
transitioning individual to the hospital instead of letting him sleep 3
feet away from rape victims.
This is absurd. Under H.R. 5, women-only spaces will be a thing of
the past.
This bill also places children at risk of medical experimentation and
bleak futures when they are given the right to hormone blockers and sex
change operations.
{time} 1300
Most children, 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls, who
question their gender identity will grow into their birth gender after
passing through puberty.
Parents who dare to oppose doctors using off-label drugs that may
sterilize their child, or performing life-altering surgical procedures,
will be considered abusive and neglectful. This has already happened
with an Ohio couple who lost custody of their daughter.
For the first time ever, H.R. 5 waives the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, enabling unhindered government discrimination against
the faith community. It also actively prohibits the religious community
from partnering with the Federal Government.
Catholic schools will no longer be able to participate in the
National School Lunch Program. Jewish synagogues will lose Federal
grant funding to protect against terror threats, and houses of worship
will lose FEMA disaster aid unless--here is the catch--they abandon
their core teachings on morality, marriage, and sexuality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle,
[[Page H3806]]
especially those who claim to be pro-women and pro-children, need to
stop this devastating legislation.
The future of women's rights, privacy, protection, and athletic
potential depends on it.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the
rule and for H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
Recent years have brought extraordinary progress in the fight for
full equality for our LGBTQ community. Like millions of others across
the country, I joined with friends and family to celebrate Supreme
Court rulings paving the way for same-sex couples to marry. But in the
midst of these joyful and historic victories, we knew that the work was
just beginning.
Though LGBTQ people could now get married, in a majority of States
they could still be fired for having a picture of their spouse on their
desk or kicked out of their home just for being who they are. The fact
is, LGBTQ people are still at risk of discrimination across key areas
of life in huge swaths of our country.
Recent national surveys of LGBTQ people show that 42 percent of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and 78 percent of transgender people
have experienced discrimination or harassment on the job because of who
they are.
Only 21 States have explicit laws barring discrimination based on
sexual orientation and employment, housing and public accommodations,
and only 20 States have such protections for gender identity.
The time to end this patchwork of protections once and for all is
now, and to do that, we must pass this important legislation.
The promotion of fairness and justice is a hallmark of who we are as
Americans. Everyone should be afforded all of the rights provided for
in our Constitution and outlined in our Declaration of Independence.
These rights are fundamental to all human beings, and all Americans
deserve the same civil rights regardless of gender, race, and sexual
orientation. We don't need to amend that.
Let's pass the rule and let's pass the Equality Act.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House
that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's
Security in the Middle East Act of 2019.
This bill includes four titles, three of which passed the House last
Congress, and one of which has already passed the House this Congress
on suspension.
My amendment will also include three additional provisions agreed to
by the Senate when they considered their version of this bill, so that
what we will debate will be identical to what the Senate passed with an
overwhelming majority vote in February.
The most critical title of H.R. 336, in my opinion, is the Combating
BDS Act of 2019, which will allow a State or local government to adopt
measures to divest assets from entities using boycotts, disbursements,
or sanctions to influence Israel's policy.
Madam Speaker, yesterday was the 71st anniversary of the founding of
the State of Israel. I can think of no better way to celebrate Israel's
independence, reaffirm our support for Israel, and indicate our ongoing
commitment to a peaceful and more secure Middle East than to consider
and pass H.R. 336 immediately.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record four letters, first, a letter
from the National Partnership for Women & Families urging support;
second, a letter from the Human Rights Campaign, also urging support
for H.R. 5; third, a letter from the American Federation of Government
Employees; and finally, a letter from several civil rights groups, all
urging support for H.R. 5.
National Partnership
for Women & Families,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.
Dear Representative: The National Partnership for Women &
Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has
fought for decades to advance the rights and well-being of
America's women and families. We work to foster a society in
which workplaces are fair, equitable and family friendly;
where everyone has access to quality, affordable health care,
including reproductive health care; and where every person
has the opportunity to achieve economic security and live
with dignity.
We write to voice our strong support for the Equality Act
(H.R. 5) and to urge you to vote YES on this groundbreaking
legislation. We also urge you to vote NO on any motion to
recommit that may be offered to undermine or alter the
Equality Act or otherwise harm civil liberties.
Despite significant progress, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people still face considerable
discrimination and lack necessary protections across the
country. While some states have enacted laws that protect
against discrimination, the patchwork nature of these
protections means that millions of people continue to face
harassment, exclusion and uncertainty that negatively impact
their safety, their day-to-day lives, their families and
their ability to participate fully in society.
Part of achieving our nation's promise of equality, dignity
and fairness is ensuring that all people, regardless of
sexual orientation or gender identity, have equal opportunity
to succeed. No one should have access to services or doors to
opportunity closed because of outdated gender stereotypes
about how people should act, look or behave. This requires
stronger national nondiscrimination protections based on sex,
sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Equality Act is historic civil rights legislation that
would amend and supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
other key federal nondiscrimination laws that provide
protection from discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin or religion. This legislation would
strengthen protections from discrimination on the basis of
sex, and add critical new protections from discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Specifically, it would provide clear, explicit protection
against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity in education, employment, housing, credit, federally
funded programs and federal jury services. These protections
are essential in ensuring that LGBTQ people have the right to
live with dignity and equality.
While the primary focus of the Equality Act is on LGBTQ
people, the Act would also close longstanding gaps in federal
law and provide important new legal protections for all women
by, for the first time, prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sex in public spaces and services and in all
federally-funded activities. This means that, for example,
when women experience harassment as customers in restaurants,
stores, hotels, taxis or airports, there will now be a
remedy. The law will also ensure that breastfeeding parents
aren't excluded from or treated less favorably in public
places just for feeding their children, and it will make
clear that pharmacies can't refuse to fill a woman's birth
control prescription.
The bill's provisions that would ensure that sex does not
stand as a barrier to full participation in federally funded
programs or activities will mean, for example, that a
developer with a federal grant couldn't discriminate against
women-owned businesses in its contracting. Women would also
have new tools to challenge a police department's
systematically inadequate response to sexual violence and
intimate partner violence, if the police department received
federal funds; and would be able to challenge denials of
reproductive health care where a federally-funded entity
otherwise provides comparable or comprehensive health care.
These protections against sex discrimination are a critical
step forward in advancing women's equality in this country.
As a leading national women's rights organization we also
feel compelled to state emphatically that the Equality Act's
protections for transgender and gender nonconforming people
in no way undermine the rights or protections afforded to
women and do not jeopardize women's safety or their ability
to participate fully or equally in sport or in any other
aspect of our society. Transgender women are women, and any
attempt to mischaracterize their gender identity or suggest
that they are trying to ``take advantage'' of protected class
status fundamentally misunderstands the reality of
transgender people's lives and experiences. Furthermore, it
causes real harm to the more than one million Americans who
identify as transgender, a population already subject to high
rates of violence and abuse, negative mental and physical
health outcomes, and experiences with discrimination and
stigmatization.
The Equality Act is a long-overdue step forward in
extending civil rights protections to millions of women and
LGBTQ people. Establishing clear protections is critical at a
time when vulnerable communities are
[[Page H3807]]
under attack. The Equality Act would provide a consistent,
national standard and ensure that everyone has the
opportunity to live safely and with dignity, to advance at
work, to provide for one's family and to thrive economically.
Sincerely,
National Partnership for Women & Families.
____
Human Rights Campaign,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Human Rights
Campaign, the nation's largest civil rights organization
working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer (LGBTQ) equality, I write to urge you to vote in favor
of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and against any Motion to
Recommit. We will consider both key votes.
Everyone--including LGBTQ people--should have an
opportunity to earn a living and provide a home for their
families without fear of constant harassment or
discrimination. The Equality Act would update our nation's
existing civil rights laws to explicitly include sexual
orientation and gender identity, which would finally provide
consistent non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people
across key areas of life, including employment, housing,
credit, education, public spaces and services, federally
funded programs, and jury service. This would ensure LGBTQ
people have access to the exact same protections as are
currently provided under federal law based on other protected
characteristics.
Currently, 30 states lack non-discrimination protections
for LGBTQ people. The patchwork nature of current laws leaves
millions of people subject to uncertainty and potential
discrimination that impacts their safety, their families, and
their day-to-day lives. In fact, two-thirds of LGBTQ
Americans report having experienced discrimination. The
Equality Act would provide a nationwide standard for non-
discrimination protections.
The Equality Act has unprecedented support. More than 200
major corporations have endorsed the legislation, as well as
more than 40 trade associations including U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Recent polling finds that a growing majority of Americans--
including Republicans, Democrats and Independents--support
LGBTQ non-discrimination protections and LGBTQ equality. A
recent survey by PRRI found that nearly seven in 10 Americans
support laws like the Equality Act. More than 500 national,
state, and local organizations have endorsed the legislation,
including social justice, religious, medical, and child
welfare organizations.
Again, I urge you to vote in favor of the Equality Act and
against any Motion to Recommit.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions
or need more information, please do not hesitate to reach out
to me.
Sincerely,
David Stacy,
Government Affairs Director,
Human Rights Campaign.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 700,000 federal and
District of Columbia government employees represented by the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) I
write to urge you to vote yes on H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
The Equality Act is long overdue legislation with bipartisan
support that affirms in the United States all people should
be treated equally.
Currently, it is not a violation of federal civil rights
law for employers to fire, landlords to deny housing, or for
schools to withhold educational opportunities from people
solely because they are a member of the LGBTQ community.
While some jurisdictions provide protections to the LGBTQ
community, the federal government cannot remain silent in the
face of continued discrimination. The Equality Act extends
protections against discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, access
to public places, federal funding, credit education, and jury
service. Federal workers provide services to all members of
the public without discrimination and expect our nation's
laws to protect all individuals in the same manner.
The Equality Act is endorsed by civil and human rights
advocates, educators, the business community, and labor
unions because the United States can only move forward
together when all, including citizens who are LGBTQ, have
full protection under the law from discrimination. Again, I
urge you to vote in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
Sincerely,
Alethea Predeoux,
Director, Legislative Department.
____
March 12, 2019.
Charles E. Schumer,
Senate Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi: We write today to
memorialize the shared agreement of African American civil
rights groups regarding the importance of ensuring the
protection of the provisions of core civil rights statutes
e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, etc., even as legislators
pursue amendments to those statutes to add additional
protections against discrimination. We stand in solidarity
and support with our partners and colleagues in a shared
commitment to ensuring that these protections are extended.
But we have also collectively agreed that these efforts must
not result in a weakening of the provisions and protections
of our bedrock civil rights statutes, each of which
represents the powerful and unrelenting demand of civil
rights activists and leaders--often at risk to their own
lives. While we have been gratified during our conversations
with House and Senate committee leaders and bill sponsors, we
regard this matter as one of such importance that we are
memorializing by this letter the understanding we have shared
in our conversations for efforts that may arise by individual
legislators or groups during the process of advancing these
bills.
The reasons for our caution and concern are, no doubt,
evident to you. The current environment is one in which we
have seen alarming animus and hostility to various ethnic and
minority groups, as well as legal challenges to what were
once regarded as unassailable civil rights legal standards.
Without question we are confronting a concerted and
unrelenting effort to chip away and eviscerate existing civil
rights protections. This means that there are inherent
dangers in opening any civil rights statutes to legislative
debate and review. Thus, the efforts currently underway to
extend anti-discrimination protection in our core civil
rights statutes, must not be advanced without the clear and
explicit agreement among sponsors, committee leadership and
party leadership that proposed amendments to our civil rights
statutes will be withdrawn should efforts be introduced to
weaken or diminish the existing provisions of those statutes.
Bills which are of immediate concern include, The Equality
Act and the American Housing and Mobility Act; however, it is
our understanding that there may be others. Below is a list
of some of the safeguards/guardrails we feel must be in place
if/when legislation proposing to amend civil rights statutes
is introduced. Each of these have been discussed and agreed
to by civil rights groups, as well as the current sponsors of
the Equality Act. They include:
Establish a strong legislative record for any proposed
changes to core Civil Rights statutes. This standard must be
maintained; Hearings, reports, testimony, etc.
Written assurances from Party Leadership that existing
protections will be preserved.
Written assurances from Sponsors that existing protections
will be preserved.
Written assurances from Party Leadership that if an
amendment(s) to existing protections or amendment(s) creating
restrictions on any of the existing protections is advanced
the bill will be pulled and no vote(s) will be taken.
Written assurances from Sponsors that if an amendment(s) to
existing protections or amendment(s) creating restrictions on
any of the existing protections is advanced* they will
withdraw their introduction of the bill and work to have the
bill pulled and no vote(s) will be taken.
A demonstrated and shared understanding from party
leadership and legislative sponsors of the ability to impact
the process once legislation is introduced given current
political dynamics, including an explanation of the
procedural path forward and the procedural path for
withdrawal if that becomes necessary.
Inclusion of Congressional Findings section in every bill.
Rollout strategies which include explicit statement(s)
about need to preserve existing protections and intent to
withdraw the bill if existing protections are threatened in
any manner.
Continue to explore standalone legislation that does not
amend the existing statute(s), should this prove to be the
safer course.
The history of civil rights in this country is one fraught
with violence, hostility and long suffering. The fight to
enforce those rights continues to this day with resistance
and opposition morphing and growing. As stewards of these
critical laws, we all have a responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the protections they embody are preserved. We
therefore want to be clear and direct in expressing our
insistence that any legislation proposing to amend legacy
civil rights statutes which is permitted to move forward, do
so ONLY when there is a commitment and agreement to do no
harm to the existing statutes and where the safeguards/
guardrails outlined in this letter are put in place.
Sincerely,
Sherrilyn Ifill,
President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
Hillary O. Shelton,
Director, Washington Bureau/SVP for Advocacy and Policy,
NAACP.
Reverend Al Sharpton,
President and Founder, National Action Network.
Melanie L. Campbell,
[[Page H3808]]
President and CEO, National Coalition on Black Civic
Participation.
Marc H. Morial,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban
League.
Kristen Clarke,
President & Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under the Law.
Vanita Gupta,
President and CEO, Leadership Conference for Civil and
Human Rights.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, for nearly a decade, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans get
the care that they need. It has allowed parents to keep their kids on
their own insurance plans, and it has protected millions and millions
of Americans who are living with preexisting conditions, and that piece
is so important.
It means that Americans living with cancer, living with heart
disease, and living with diabetes can no longer be thrown off their
plans or denied coverage simply because of their medical history.
In my own State of Pennsylvania, more than 5.4 million people depend
on these protections to treat their asthma, to afford their insulin,
and to receive treatments for other preexisting illnesses.
Madam Speaker, I promise these families that I will keep fighting to
keep them healthy, which is why this week I am voting for the
Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drugs Costs Act
which will ban junk insurance plans that don't offer sufficient
coverage, bring lower-priced generic prescription drugs to market more
quickly, and invest in helping Americans sign up for healthcare.
That is what Democrats are focused on, moving forward, making sure
seniors, veterans, and working families across our Nation have the
healthcare they need. I hope the current administration will see this
as an opportunity to work with our House majority in order to lower the
cost of prescription medications, and I hope Republicans in Congress
will join us in our mission to keep working for the people and to make
sure that every American can afford their prescription medications and
their healthcare.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge opposition to the rule. The
majority has proposed three different measures today, and while I am a
supporter of the bill concerning Tribal rights, I am opposed to H.R. 5
and H.R. 987, and I regret that.
Quite frankly, had the process on these bills been different, I think
the vote that we would see in this Chamber would be very different
today. I think, literally, a more fulsome and more open process and
amendments on H.R. 5 might have unlocked dozens of additional votes for
that legislation.
I think with H.R. 987 we don't have to speculate. We know three of
those bills passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with
unanimous, bipartisan support, all of them dealing with drug prices.
That would have been an easy vote. We could have moved that through.
My friends could have still brought the other four matters that they
cared about under a rule, brought it to the floor. They have got the
votes to move it. It would have precisely the same prospects of success
it is going to have in the United States Senate.
The President has already made it clear, since he issued a statement,
that he is very likely to veto it if it were to make it to his desk. So
why in the world we threw away an opportunity to do some good for the
American people in an area where we agree, in order to advance
something that we know cannot become law, is mystifying to me, to say
the least.
Again, H.R. 5 is well-intentioned and designed to expand civil
rights, but it also adds a term with no clear definition to our civil
rights laws without regard for how it will work in practice.
H.R. 987 has four bills that are unacceptable, three bills that are
eminently acceptable. I do want to close though on a positive note.
Madam Speaker, I do applaud my friends for bringing the Native
American issue to fruition today. I am going to be opposing them on the
rule but supporting them on that legislation. I think it was a very
wise decision to put it under a rule, quite frankly, and I applaud my
good friend Chairman Grijalva for working with my good friend Chairman
McGovern and making sure that that happened. This important piece of
legislation, which, quite frankly, is important not just to the Tribe
in question, but establishes the principle that we won't let land going
into trust be taken out of trust, is very important.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 364 organizations
endorsing the Equality Act, as well as a list of companies supporting
H.R. 5 who employ over 9.8 million workers in the United States.
EQUALITY ACT
364 Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
9 to 5, National Association of Working Women; A Better
Balance; ACRIA; ADAP Advocacy Association; Advocates for
Youth; AFL-CIO; African American Ministers In Action; AIDS
United; Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation; American
Association for Access, Equity and Diversity; American
Association of University Women (AAUW); American Atheists;
American Bar Association; American Civil Liberties Union;
American Conference of Cantors.
American Counseling Association; American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American
Federation of Teachers; American Humanist Association;
American Medical Association; American Psychological
Association; American School Counselor Association; amfAR,
Foundation for AIDS Research; Anti-Defamation League; Asian
Americans Advancing Justice AAJC; Asian Pacific
American Labor Alliance (APALA); Association of Flight
Attendants--CWA; Athlete Ally; Auburn Seminary; Autistic Self
Advocacy Network.
BALM Ministries; Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Black and
Pink; Campaign for Youth Justice; Caring Across Generations;
Catholics for Choice; Center for American Progress; Center
for Black Equity; Center for Inclusivity; Center for Inquiry;
Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies; CenterLink: The
Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of American
Rabbis; Child Welfare League of America; Coalition of Labor
Union Women.
Communications Workers of America; Community Access
National Network (CANN); Consortium for Children; Council for
Global Equality; DignityUSA; Disciples Justice Action
Network; Disciples LGBTQ+ Alliance; Disability Rights
Education & Defense Fund (DREDF); Equal Rights Advocates;
Equality Federation; Estuary Space; Faith in Public Life;
Family Equality Council; Feminist Majority; The Fenway
Institute.
FORGE, Inc.; Forward Together; Freedom Center for Social
Justice; Freedom for All Americans; Freedom to Work; Gay
Men's Health Crisis (GMHC); Gender Spectrum; Generation
Progress; Georgetown University Law Center--Civil Rights
Clinic; Girls Inc.; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing
LGBTQ Equality; Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan
Community Churches; GLSEN; Guttmacher Institute; Hadassah,
The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.
Harm Reduction Coalition; HealthHIV; Hindu American
Foundation; Hispanic Federation; Hispanic Health Network; HIV
Medicine Association; Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights
Watch; Impact Fund; In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's
Reproductive Justice Agenda; Indivisible; Integrity USA:
Episcopal Rainbow; Interfaith Alliance; International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers; International
Association of Providers of AIDS Care.
Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Women
International; Justice in Aging; Keshet; Labor Council for
Latin American Advancement (LCLAA); Lambda Legal; Latino
Commission on AIDS; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; League of United
Latin American Citizens; Lesbian and Gay Veterinary Medical
Association (LGVMA); LGBT Technology Partnership & Institute;
Main Street Alliance; MANA, A National Latina Organization;
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger; Men of Reform Judaism.
Methodist Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan
Community Churches; MomsRising; More Light Presbyterians;
Movement Advancement Project; Muslim Advocates; Muslim Public
Affairs Council; Muslims for Progressive Values; NAACP; NARAL
Pro-Choice America; NASTAD (National Alliance of State &
Territorial AIDS Directors); National AIDS Housing Coalition;
National Alliance for Partnerships in
[[Page H3809]]
Equity (NAPE); National Alliance to End Sexual Violence;
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF).
National Association for Female Executives; National
Association of County and City Health Officials; National
Association of School Psychologists; National Association of
School Superintendents; National Association of Secondary
School Principals; National Association of Social Workers;
National Black Justice Coalition; National Center For Lesbian
Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National
Center on Adoption and Permanency; National Coalition for
LGBT Health; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs;
National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (COSH);
National Council of Jewish Women; National Crittenton.
National Education Association; National Employment Law
Project; National Employment Lawyers Association; National
Fair Housing Alliance; National Hispanic Media Coalition;
National Hispanic Medical Association; National Latina
Institute for Reproductive Health; National Latinx
Psychological Association; National LGBT Chamber of Commerce;
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Organization
for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families;
National PTA; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
(NQAPIA); National Taskforce on Tradeswomen Issues.
National Trans Bar Association; National Urban League;
National Women's Health Network; National Women's Law Center;
NEAT--National Equality Action Team; NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice; New Ways Ministry; NMAC; North
American Council on Adoptable Children; Out & Equal
Workplace Advocates; OutServe-SLDN; Oxfam America; Parity;
People For the American Way; PFLAG National.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America;
Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood
Federation of America; Population Connection Action Fund;
Positive Women's Network-USA; Pride at Work; Promundo-US;
Public Justice; Rabbinical Assembly; Reconciling Ministries
Network; ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation;
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Religious
Institute; RootsAction; Ryan White Medical Providers
Coalition.
SafeBAE; SAGE; Secular Coalition for America; Secular
Policy Institute; SER Jobs for Progress National Inc.;
Service Employees International Union; Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS); Soulforce;
Southern HIV/AIDS Strategy Initiative (SASI); Stop Sexual
Assault in Schools (SSAIS); SurvJustice; T'ruah: The Rabbinic
Call for Human Rights; The AIDS Institute; The Episcopal
Church; The lnanna Project.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs; The National
LGBTQ Workers Center; The TransLatin@ Coalition; The Trevor
Project; The Tyler Clementi Foundation; The Williams
Institute; Transgender Law Center; Transgender Legal Defense
& Education Fund; Treatment Action Group; True Colors United;
UFCW OUTreach; Ultra Violet; UMForward; (un)common good
collective; UnidosUS.
Union = Fuerza Latinx Institute; Union for Reform Judaism;
Union of Affirming Christians; Unitarian Universalist
Association; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation;
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries;
United State of Women; United Synagogue of Conservative
Judaism; URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity; Voice
for Adoption; Voices for Progress; Vote Common Good, Greater
Things; Voto Latino; Witness to Mass Incarceration; Women's
Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER); Young
Feminists & Allies: National Organization for Women's (NOW)
Inaugural Virtual Chapter.
STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
Alaskans Together For Equality, AK.
AIDS Alabama, AL.
Equality Alabama, AL.
Arizona Coalition to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, AZ.
Equality Arizona, AZ.
9to5 California, CA.
Bienestar Human Services, CA.
California Employment Lawyers Association, CA.
California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, CA.
Equality California, CA.
Hollywood NOW, CA.
Latino Equality Alliance, CA.
Legal Aid At Work, CA.
LGBT Center OC, CA.
LGBT Community Center of the Desert, CA.
Missiongathering Christian Church, CA.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Right--California, CA.
Stonewall Democratic Club, CA.
The Diversity Center of Santa Cruz County, CA.
The Los Angeles LGBT Center, CA.
The Source LGBT+ Center, CA.
9to5 Colorado, CO.
One Colorado, CO.
Out Boulder County, CO.
Rocky Mountain CARES, CO.
Triangle Community Center Inc., CT.
Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project,
DC.
GLAA, DC.
The DC Center for the LGBT Community, DC.
Trans-Latinx DMV (DC, Maryland and Virginia), DC.
Whitman-Walker Health, DC.
Compass LGBTQ Community Center, FL.
Equality Florida, FL.
QLatinx, FL.
The Pride Center at Equality Park, FL.
Visuality, Inc., FL.
9to5 Georgia, GA.
Georgia Equality, GA.
Lake Oconee Community Church, GA.
The Rush Center, GA.
One Iowa, IA.
AIDS Foundation of Chicago, IL.
Arab American Family Services, IL.
Association of Latinas & Latinos Motivating Action (ALMA),
IL.
Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Chicago
Metropolitan Battered Women's Network, Life Span, &
Resilience, IL.
Equality Illinois, IL.
Illinois Accountability Initiative, IL.
Pride Action Tank, IL.
Resilience, formerly Rape Victim Advocates, IL.
United Latinx Pride, IL.
Women Employed, IL.
Indiana Youth Group, IN.
End Rape on Campus, LA.
Louisiana Progress Action, LA.
Lousiana Trans Advocates, LA.
MassEquality, MA.
FreeState Justice, MD.
Gender Rights Maryland, MD.
Public Justice Center, MD.
EqualityMaine, ME.
Affirmations, MI.
Equality Michigan, MI.
Kalamazoo Gay Lesbian Resource Center, MI.
Ruth Ellis Center, Inc., MI.
Gender Justice, MN.
OutFront MN, MN.
PROMO, MO.
St. Louis Effort for AIDS, MO.
Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, MT.
Charlotte Clergy Coalition for Justice, NC.
Equality North Carolina, NC.
Latinos in the Deep South, NC.
National Organization for Women Charlotte chapter, NC.
North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, ND.
OutNebraska, NE.
New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence, NH.
Garden State Equality, NJ.
Hudson Pride Center, NJ.
Equality New Mexico, NM.
KWH Law Center for Social Justice & Change, NM.
Southwest Women's Law Center, NM.
Tewa Women United, NM.
Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) of UAW 2325,
LGBTQ+ Caucus, NY.
Brooklyn Community Pride Center, NY.
Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, NY.
Empire State Pride Agenda, NY.
Equality New York, NY.
Forefront Church NYC, NY.
Gay & Lesbian Independent Democrats (GLID), NY.
Gender Equality Law Center, NY.
LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, NY.
LGBT Bar Association of New York, NY.
Sakhi for South Asian Women, NY.
The Volunteer Lawyers Project of Onondaga County, Inc., NY.
Theatre of the Oppressed NYC, NY.
VillageCare, NY.
Equality Ohio, OH.
Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, OH.
TransOhio, OH.
Freedom Oklahoma, OK.
Basic Rights Oregon, OR.
Cascade AIDS Project, OR.
Christ Church: Portland, OR.
Oregon Abuse Advocates & Survivors in Service, OR.
Mazzoni Center, PA.
Ni-ta-nee NOW (Centre County, PA), PA.
PA Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice, PA.
The Montgomery County LGBT Business Council, PA.
PA Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice, PA.
Washington County Gay Straight Alliance, Inc., PA.
Women's Law Project, PA.
New Voices for Reproductive Justice, PA and OH.
Women's Rights and Empowerment Network (WREN), SC.
Equality South Dakota, SD.
Tennessee Equality Project, TN.
American Association of University Women Texas (AAUW
Texas), TX.
Cathedral of Hope United Church of Christ, TX.
Equality Texas, TX.
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, TX.
Open Arms Rape Crisis Center & LGBT+ Services, TX.
Resource Center, TX.
Texas Freedom Network, TX.
The Afiya Center, TX.
Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT), TX.
Equality Utah, UT.
Diversity Richmond, VA.
Equality Virginia, VA.
Entre Hermanos, WA.
Gay City: Seattle's LGBTQ Center, WA.
Gender Justice League, WA.
Legal Voice, WA.
Oasis Youth Center, WA.
Rainbow Center, WA.
[[Page H3810]]
9to5 Wisconsin, WI.
AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, WI.
FAIR Wisconsin, WI.
Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, WI.
EQUALITY ACT
The Business Coalition for the Equality Act is a group of
leading U.S. employers that support the Equality Act, which
would finally guarantee explicit, permanent protections for
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under our
existing civil rights laws.
The companies:
Employ over 9.8 million workers in the U.S.
Have combined revenue that exceeds $4.2 trillion.
Have operations in all 50 States:
A.T. Kearney Inc., Chicago, IL.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., New Albany, OH.
Accenture, New York NY.
Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA.
ADP, Roseland, NJ.
Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.
Airbnb Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Alaska Airlines, Seattle, WA.
Alcoa Corp., Pittsburgh, PA.
Ally Financial Inc., Detroit, MI.
Amalgamated Bank, New York, NY.
Amazon.com Inc., Seattle, WA.
American Airlines, Fort Worth, TX.
American Eagle Outfitters Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
American Express Global Business Travel, Jersey City, NJ.
Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA.
Arconic, New York, NY.
Ascena Retail Group Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Aspen Skiing Company LLC, Aspen, CO.
AT&T Inc., Dallas, TX.
Atlassian, San Francisco, CA.
Bain & Co. Inc./Bridgespan Group, Boston, MA.
Bank of America Corp., Charlotte, NC.
Bayer U.S. LLC, Whippany, NJ.
BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Best Buy Co. Inc., Richfield, MN.
Biogen, Cambridge, MA.
Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., Ridgefield, CT.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., McLean, VA.
Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA.
Box Inc., Redwood City, CA.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., New York, NY.
Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc., Lake Success, NY.
Brown-Forman Corp., Louisville, KY.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., Las Vegas, NV.
Capital One Financial Corp., McLean, VA.
Cardinal Health Inc., Dublin, OH.
Cargill Inc., Wayzata, MN.
Chevron Corp., San Ramon, CA.
Chobani, Norwich, NY.
Choice Hotels International Inc., Rockville, MD.
Cisco Systems Inc., San Jose, CA.
Citigroup Inc., New York, NY.
Citrix Systems Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL.
CME Group Inc., Chicago, IL.
CNA Financial Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Coca-Cola Co., The, Atlanta, GA.
Compass Bancshares Inc. (BBVA Compass), Birmingham, AL.
Corning, Corning, NY.
Converse Inc., Boston, MA.
Cox Enterprises Inc., Atlanta, GA.
CSAA Insurance Group, Walnut Creek, CA.
Cummins Inc., Columbus, IN.
CVS Health Corp., Woonsocket, RI.
Danone North America, White Plains, NY.
Darden Restaurants Inc., Orlando, FL.
Deloitte LLP, New York, NY.
Dell Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX.
Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., The, New York, NY.
Diageo North America, Norwalk, CT.
Dow Chemical Co., The Midland, MI.
Dropbox Inc., San Francisco, CA.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont), Wilmington, DE.
Eastern Bank Corp., Boston, MA.
Eaton Corp., Cleveland, OH.
eBay Inc., San Jose, CA.
Ecolab Inc., St. Paul, MN.
Edison International, Rosemead, CA.
Ernst & Young LLP, New York, NY.
Estee Lauder Companies Inc., The, New York, NY.
Evolent Health Inc., Arlington, VA.
Exelon Corp., Chicago, IL.
Expedia Group, Bellevue, WA.
Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
First Data Corp., Atlanta, GA.
Food Lion, Salisbury, NC.
Gap Inc., San Francisco, CA.
General Electric Co., Boston, MA.
General Mills Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
General Motors Co., Detroit, MI.
Giant of Maryland LLC, Landover, MD.
Gilead Sciences Inc., Foster City, CA.
Glassdoor Inc., Mill Valley, CA.
Google Inc., Mountain View, CA.
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, The, New York, NY.
Gusto, San Francisco, CA.
HERE North America LLC, Chicago, IL.
Hershey Co., The, Hershey, PA.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Palo Alto, CA.
Hilton Inc., McLean, VA.
HP Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
HSF Affiliates LLC, Irvine, CA.
HSN Inc. St., Petersburg, FL.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY.
Hyatt Hotels Corp., Chicago, IL.
IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.
IHS Markit Ltd., New York, NY.
IKEA Holding US Inc., Conshohocken, PA.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Davidson, NC.
Insight Enterprises Inc., Tempe, AZ.
Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA.
Intercontinental Hotels Group Americas, Atlanta, GA.
Iron Mountain Inc., Boston, MA.
John Hancock Financial Services Inc., Boston, MA.
Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, NY.
Juniper Networks Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.
Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Kellogg Co., Battle Creek, MI.
Kenneth Cole Productions Inc., New York, NY.
KPMG LLP, New York, NY.
Lendlease Americas Inc., New York, NY.
Levi Strauss & Co., San Francisco, CA.
Linden Research Inc., Davis, CA.
Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, Wilmington, NC.
Lyft Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Macy's Inc., Cincinnati, OH.
Marriott International Inc., Bethesda, MD.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Springfield, MA.
Mastercard, Purchase, NY.
Medtronic PLC, Minneapolis, MN.
Merck, Kenilworth, NJ.
Meredith Corp. Des Moines, IA.
MGM Resorts International, Las Vegas, NV.
Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA.
Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, Taylorsville, NC.
Moody's Corp., New York, NY.
Morgan Stanley, New York, NY.
Nationwide, Columbus, OH.
Navient, Wilmington, DE.
Navigant Consulting Inc., Chicago, IL.
Netflix Inc., Los Gatos, CA.
Nike Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Northrop Grumman Corp., Falls Church, VA.
Nuance Communications, Burlington, MA.
Office Depot Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Oracle Corp., Redwood City, CA.
Patreon Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
PepsiCo Inc., Purchase, NY.
Pfizer Inc., New York, NY.
Pinterest Inc., San Francisco, CA.
PNC Financial Services Group Inc., The, Pittsburgh, PA.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, New York, NY.
Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH.
Pure Storage Inc., Mountain View, CA.
QUALCOMM Inc., San Diego, CA.
Realogy Holdings Corp., Madison, NJ.
Replacements Ltd., McLeansville, NC.
Royal Bank of Canada, New York, NY.
S&P Global Inc., New York, NY.
Salesforce, San Francisco, CA.
SAP America Inc., Newtown Square, PA.
Seagate Technology plc, Cupertino, CA.
Shire PLC, Lexington, MA.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO.
Shutterstock Inc., New York, NY.
Siemens Corp., Washington, DC.
Sodexo Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
Spotify USA Inc., New York, NY.
Square Inc., San Francisco, CA.
SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA.
Symantec Corp., Mountain View, CA.
Synchrony, Stamford, CT.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Deerfield, IL.
Target Corp., Minneapolis, MN.
Tech Data Corp., Clearwater, FL.
TIAA, New York, NY.
T-Mobile USA Inc., Bellevue, WA.
TPG Global LLC, Forth Worth, TX.
TransUnion, Chicago, IL.
Turner Construction Co., New York, NY.
Twitter Inc., San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Bancorp, Minneapolis, MN.
Uber Technologies Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Ultimate Software, Weston, FL.
Under Armour Inc., Baltimore, MD.
Unilever, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
United Airlines, Chicago, IL.
United Parcel Service Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Univision Communications Inc., New York, NY.
Verizon Communications Inc., New York, NY.
Visa, Foster City, CA.
Warby Parker, New York, NY.
WeddingWire Inc., Chevy Chase, MD.
Wells Fargo & Co., San Francisco, CA.
Whirlpool Corp., Benton Harbor, MI.
Williams-Sonoma Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Workday Inc., Pleasanton, CA.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Inc., Parsippany, NJ.
Xerox Corp., Norwalk, CT.
Yelp Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Yext Inc., New York, NY.
Zillow Group, Seattle, WA.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc., Warsaw, IN.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, today we will move forward on three
pieces of legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. We
will move to protect Americans' access to health insurance; provide
much-needed relief on prescription drug prices; provide Federal
recognition to a Native American community; and at long last, pass the
Equality Act, to remove the burden of discrimination and move us closer
to a country where members of the LGBTQ community have an equal
opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
The Equality Act will not be the end of our long journey towards full
LGBTQ equality, but it will finally get
[[Page H3811]]
our laws in line with the values our country was founded upon. As was
recognized in our founding documents, we must continually take steps to
make our country more perfect.
Acknowledging in law the challenges facing LGBTQ people, and taking
concrete action to correct them, brings us one step closer to that
perfect union.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
governing debate of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and the underlying
legislation.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation and I
commend once more the tireless work of my colleague, the gentleman from
Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.
I was proud to stand by him at its introduction, and championed it
during our hearing on the matter in this committee, the first such
hearing on the matter, for which I would also like to commend the
Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerry Nadler.
Much has changed in recent years about Americans' attitude towards
members of the LGBTQ community.
While Americans can be happy that we as a society have made strides
in marriage equality, there is much work to do.
Despite significant legal advances over the past several years--
including marriage equality, LGBTQ Americans remain vulnerable to
discrimination on a daily basis and too often have little recourse.
Fifty percent of the national LGBTQ community live in states where,
though they have the right to marry, they have no explicit non-
discrimination protections in other areas of daily life.
In most states, a same-sex couple can get married one day and legally
denied service at a restaurant, be fired from their jobs or evicted
from their apartment the next.
The Equality Act is historic legislation that says, unequivocally,
that LGBTQ Americans deserve the full protections guaranteed by the
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Equality Act extends anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ
Americans with regard to employment, education, access to credit, jury
service, federal funding, housing, and public accommodations.
No American should ever be treated as less than equal in the eyes of
the law.
The Equality Act will guarantee that LGBTQ Americans in Texas and
across the country cannot be discriminated against because of who they
are or whom they love.
It is long past time for this legislation to become law and that is
why I proudly joined my colleagues today to get the job done.
In some areas, federal law prohibiting sex discrimination has already
been properly interpreted by federal courts and administrative agencies
to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity.
The Equality Act affirms these interpretations of existing law and
makes the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity explicit, in order to provide greater
clarity to members of the public, employers, schools, businesses and
others.
In areas where sex discrimination is not already prohibited, the bill
amends existing law to bar discrimination on the basis of sex, as well
as sexual orientation and gender identity.
The need for this legislation is all the more urgent following recent
news that the Supreme Court has granted a writ of Certiorari to a trio
of three cases to test the reach of the Civil Rights act to determine
if they cover gay and transgendered individuals.
With the political reality on the Court as it is, this body--the
House of Representatives--owes it to our constituents to ensure that
critical issues related to the civil rights of our fellow citizens are
handled by their elected representatives, and not left to the whims of
a reconstituted Trump Court demonstrably antagonistic towards the
interests of minorities.
This is why the Equality Act has the bipartisan support of Members of
Congress, the strong support of the business community, and the
overwhelming support of the American people--with more than 7 in 10
supporting the Equality Act.
On behalf of LGBTQ Texans and all Americans, I am proud to be one of
the original co-sponsors of H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
I look forward to voting YES when it comes to the House Floor,
tomorrow and working towards full enactment.
With this critical legislation, we will finally, fully end
discrimination against LGBTQ Americans, and move our nation closer to
fulfilling the promise of equality, opportunity and justice for every
American.
In the meanwhile, I support the rule governing debate of H.R. 5 and
the underlying legislation.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as
follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 377
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 336) to make improvements to certain defense and
security assistance provisions and to authorize the
appropriation of funds to Israel, to reauthorize the United
States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt
the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment described in section 5 of this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader or their respective designees; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in Section 4 is an
amendment to H.R. 336 to add at the end of the bill the
following:
``SEC. 406. CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINE FOR REPORT ON
ESTABLISHING AN ENTERPRISE FUND FOR JORDAN
``For purposes of section 205(a), the term `establishment
of the United States Development Finance Corporation' means
the end of the transition period, as defined in section 1461
of the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to
Development Act of 2018 (division F of Public Law 115-254).
``SEC. 407. FORM OF REPORT ON THE COOPERATION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ISRAEL WITH RESPECT TO COUNTERING
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS
``The report required under section 123(d) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
``SEC. 408. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON WITHDRAWALS OF UNITED STATES
FORCES FROM SYRIA AND AFGHANISTAN
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) The foreign terrorist organization al Qaeda,
responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, maintains
a presence in Afghanistan.
``(2) The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, better known
by its acronym ISIS, flourished in the chaos unleashed by the
civil war in Syria and at one point controlled extensive
territory in Iraq and Syria.
``(3) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their affiliates have murdered
thousands of innocent civilians.
``(4) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their affiliates have proven
resilient and have regrouped when the United States and its
partners have withdrawn from the fight against them.
``(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
``(1) acknowledges that the United States military and our
partners have made significant progress in the campaign
against al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham
(ISIS), and honors the contributions and sacrifice of the
members of the United States Armed Forces who have served on
the front lines of this fight;
``(2) recognizes the continuing threat to the homeland and
our allies posed by al Qaeda and ISIS, which maintain an
ability to operate in Syria and Afghanistan;
``(3) expresses concern that Iran has supported the Taliban
in Afghanistan and Hizballah and the Assad regime in Syria,
and has sought to frustrate diplomatic efforts to resolve
conflicts in these two countries;
``(4) recognizes the positive role the United States and
its partners have played in Syria and Afghanistan fighting
terrorist groups, countering Iranian aggression, deterring
the further use of chemical weapons, and protecting human
rights;
``(5) warns that a precipitous withdrawal of United States
forces from the ongoing fight against these groups, without
effective, countervailing efforts to secure gains in Syria
and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup,
destabilize critical regions, and create vacuums that could
be filled by Iran or Russia, to the detriment of United
States interests and those of our allies;
``(6) recognizes that al Qaeda and ISIS pose a global
threat, which merits increased international contributions to
the counterterrorism, diplomatic, and stabilization efforts
underway in Syria and Afghanistan;
``(7) recognizes that diplomatic efforts to secure
peaceful, negotiated solutions to the conflicts in Syria and
Afghanistan are necessary to long-term stability and
counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and South Asia;
``(8) acknowledges the progress made by Special
Representative Khalilzad in his efforts to promote
reconciliation in Afghanistan;
``(9) calls upon the Administration to conduct a thorough
review of the military and diplomatic strategies in Syria and
Afghanistan, including an assessment of the risk that
withdrawal from those countries could strengthen the power
and influence of Russia and Iran in the Middle East and South
Asia and undermine diplomatic efforts toward negotiated,
peaceful solutions;
``(10) requests that the Administration, as part of this
review, solicit the views of Israel, our regional partners,
and other key troop-contributing nations in the fight against
al Qaeda and ISIS;
``(11) reiterates support for international diplomatic
efforts to facilitate peaceful, negotiated resolutions to the
ongoing conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan on terms that
respect the rights of innocent civilians and deny safe havens
to terrorists;
[[Page H3812]]
``(12) calls upon the Administration to pursue a strategy
that sets the conditions for the long-term defeat of al Qaeda
and ISIS, as well as the protection of regional partners and
allies, while ensuring that Iran cannot dominate the region
or threaten Israel;
``(13) encourages close collaboration between the Executive
Branch and the Legislative Branch to ensure continuing
strong, bipartisan support for United States military
operations in Syria and Afghanistan; and
``(14) calls upon the Administration to certify that
conditions have been met for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda
and ISIS before initiating any significant withdrawal of
United States forces from Syria or Afghanistan.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of
the use of military force.''.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 336.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 189, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 205]
YEAS--228
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--189
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Richmond
NOT VOTING--13
Abraham
Aderholt
Brooks (IN)
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Higgins (LA)
Johnson (LA)
Keating
Norcross
Pence
Roby
Ryan
Swalwell (CA)
{time} 1341
Messrs. TURNER, PALAZZO, MULLIN, and DIAZ-BALART changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, SCOTT of Virginia, and Mrs. BUSTOS
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Mr. RICHMOND changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 188, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 206]
YEAS--229
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
[[Page H3813]]
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langevin
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Abraham
Aderholt
Brooks (IN)
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Higgins (LA)
Johnson (LA)
Pence
Roby
Ryan
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Walker
Weber (TX)
{time} 1350
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________