[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 83 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3931-H3950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              EQUALITY ACT

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, 
gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Craig). Pursuant to House Resolution 
377, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Equality Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Discrimination can occur on the basis of the sex, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, 
     as well as because of sex-based stereotypes. Each of these 
     factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and 
     each is a form of sex discrimination.
       (2) A single instance of discrimination may have more than 
     one basis. For example, discrimination against a married 
     same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that 
     marriage should only be between heterosexual couples, the 
     sexual orientation of the two individuals in the couple, or 
     both. Discrimination against a pregnant lesbian could be 
     based on her sex, her sexual orientation, her pregnancy, or 
     on the basis of multiple factors.
       (3) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 
     (referred to as ``LGBTQ'') people commonly experience 
     discrimination in securing access to public accommodations--
     including restaurants, senior centers, stores, places of or 
     establishments that provide entertainment, health care 
     facilities, shelters, government offices, youth service 
     providers including adoption and foster care providers, and 
     transportation. Forms of discrimination include the exclusion 
     and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment, harassment, 
     and violence. This discrimination prevents the full 
     participation of LGBTQ people in society and disrupts the 
     free flow of commerce.
       (4) Women also have faced discrimination in many 
     establishments such as stores and restaurants, and places or 
     establishments that provide other goods or services, such as 
     entertainment or transportation, including sexual harassment, 
     differential pricing for substantially similar products and 
     services, and denial of services because they are pregnant or 
     breastfeeding.
       (5) Many employers already and continue to take proactive 
     steps, beyond those required by some States and localities, 
     to ensure they are fostering positive and respectful cultures 
     for all employees. Many places of public accommodation also 
     recognize the economic imperative to offer goods and services 
     to as many consumers as possible.
       (6) Regular and ongoing discrimination against LGBTQ 
     people, as well as women, in accessing public accommodations 
     contributes to negative social and economic outcomes, and in 
     the case of public accommodations operated by State and local 
     governments, abridges individuals' constitutional rights.
       (7) The discredited practice known as ``conversion 
     therapy'' is a form of discrimination that harms LGBTQ people 
     by undermining individuals sense of self worth, increasing 
     suicide ideation and substance abuse, exacerbating family 
     conflict, and contributing to second class status.
       (8) Both LGBTQ people and women face widespread 
     discrimination in employment and various services, including 
     by entities that receive Federal financial assistance. Such 
     discrimination--
       (A) is particularly troubling and inappropriate for 
     programs and services funded wholly or in part by the Federal 
     Government;
       (B) undermines national progress toward equal treatment 
     regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity; 
     and
       (C) is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of 
     equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       (9) Federal courts have widely recognized that, in enacting 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress validly invoked its 
     powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide a full range 
     of remedies in response to persistent, widespread, and 
     pervasive discrimination by both private and government 
     actors.
       (10) Discrimination by State and local governments on the 
     basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, 
     housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and 
     activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates 
     the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States. In many circumstances, 
     such discrimination also violates other constitutional rights 
     such as those of liberty and privacy under the due process 
     clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
       (11) Individuals who are LGBTQ, or are perceived to be 
     LGBTQ, have been subjected to a history and pattern of 
     persistent, widespread, and pervasive discrimination on the 
     bases of sexual orientation and gender identity by both 
     private sector and Federal, State, and local government 
     actors, including in employment, housing, and public 
     accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving 
     Federal financial assistance. An explicit and comprehensive 
     national solution is needed to address such discrimination, 
     which has sometimes resulted in violence or death, including 
     the full range of remedies available under the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964.
       (12) Numerous provisions of Federal law expressly prohibit 
     discrimination on the basis of sex, and Federal agencies and 
     courts have correctly interpreted these prohibitions on sex 
     discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes. In 
     particular, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     correctly interpreted title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 in Macy v. Holder, Baldwin v. Foxx, and Lusardi v. 
     McHugh.
       (13) The absence of explicit prohibitions of discrimination 
     on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity under 
     Federal statutory law has created uncertainty for employers 
     and other entities covered by Federal nondiscrimination laws 
     and caused unnecessary hardships for LGBTQ individuals.
       (14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to 
     rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of 
     obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-

[[Page H3932]]

     sex relationships are often discriminated against when two 
     names associated with one gender appear on a housing 
     application, and transgender people often encounter 
     discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a 
     former name.
       (15) National surveys, including a study commissioned by 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, show that 
     housing discrimination against LGBTQ people is very 
     prevalent. For instance, when same-sex couples inquire about 
     housing that is available for rent, they are less likely to 
     receive positive responses from landlords. A national 
     matched-pair testing investigation found that nearly one-half 
     of same-sex couples face adverse, differential treatment when 
     seeking elder housing. According to other studies, 
     transgender people have half the homeownership rate of non-
     transgender people and about 1 in 5 transgender people 
     experience homelessness.
       (16) As a result of the absence of explicit prohibitions 
     against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 
     gender identity, credit applicants who are LGBTQ, or 
     perceived to be LGBTQ, have unequal opportunities to 
     establish credit. LGBTQ people can experience being denied a 
     mortgage, credit card, student loan, or many other types of 
     credit simply because of their sexual orientation or gender 
     identity.
       (17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, 
     especially transgender people and women, are economically 
     disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with 
     other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex 
     couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex 
     couples.
       (18) The right to an impartial jury of one's peers and the 
     reciprocal right to jury service are fundamental to the free 
     and democratic system of justice in the United States and are 
     based in the Bill of Rights. There is, however, an 
     unfortunate and long-documented history in the United States 
     of attorneys discriminating against LGBTQ individuals, or 
     those perceived to be LGBTQ, in jury selection. Failure to 
     bar peremptory challenges based on the actual or perceived 
     sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual not 
     only erodes a fundamental right, duty, and obligation of 
     being a citizen of the United States, but also unfairly 
     creates a second class of citizenship for LGBTQ victims, 
     witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
       (19) Numerous studies document the shortage of qualified 
     and available homes for the 437,000 youth in the child 
     welfare system and the negative outcomes for the many youth 
     who live in group care as opposed to a loving home or who age 
     out without a permanent family. Although same-sex couples are 
     7 times more likely to foster or adopt than their different-
     sex counterparts, many child placing agencies refuse to serve 
     same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals. This has resulted in 
     a reduction of the pool of qualified and available homes for 
     youth in the child welfare system who need placement on a 
     temporary or permanent basis. Barring discrimination in 
     foster care and adoption will increase the number of homes 
     available to foster children waiting for foster and adoptive 
     families.
       (20) LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the foster care 
     system by at least a factor of two and report twice the rate 
     of poor treatment while in care compared to their non-LGBTQ 
     counterparts. LGBTQ youth in foster care have a higher 
     average number of placements, higher likelihood of living in 
     a group home, and higher rates of hospitalization for 
     emotional reasons and juvenile justice involvement than their 
     non-LGBTQ peers because of the high level of bias and 
     discrimination that they face and the difficulty of finding 
     affirming foster placements. Further, due to their physical 
     distance from friends and family, traumatic experiences, and 
     potentially unstable living situations, all youth involved 
     with child welfare are at risk for being targeted by 
     traffickers seeking to exploit children. Barring 
     discrimination in child welfare services will ensure improved 
     treatment and outcomes for LGBTQ foster children.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to expand as 
     well as clarify, confirm and create greater consistency in 
     the protections and remedies against discrimination on the 
     basis of all covered characteristics and to provide guidance 
     and notice to individuals, organizations, corporations, and 
     agencies regarding their obligations under the law.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition on Discrimination or Segregation in Public 
     Accommodations.--Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or national 
     origin''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``stadium'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``stadium or other place of or 
     establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, 
     recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public 
     display;'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or 
     program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer 
     or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, 
     service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral 
     parlor, or establishment that provides health care, 
     accounting, or legal services;
       ``(5) any train service, bus service, car service, taxi 
     service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of 
     or establishment that provides transportation service; and''.
       (b) Prohibition on Discrimination or Segregation Under 
     Law.--Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000a-1) is amended 
     by inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'' before ``or national origin''.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Title II of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2000a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 208. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``A reference in this title to an establishment--
       ``(1) shall be construed to include an individual whose 
     operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, 
     service, or program; and
       ``(2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical 
     facility or place.''.

     SEC. 4. DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.

       Section 301(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000b(a)) is amended by inserting ``sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or national 
     origin''.

     SEC. 5. DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 401(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000c(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' 
     before ``or national origin''.
       (b) Civil Actions by the Attorney General.--Section 407 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000c-6) is amended, in subsection 
     (a)(2), by inserting ``(including sexual orientation and 
     gender identity),'' before ``or national origin''.
       (c) Classification and Assignment.--Section 410 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000c-9) is amended by inserting ``(including 
     sexual orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or 
     national origin''.

     SEC. 6. FEDERAL FUNDING.

       Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d) is amended by inserting ``sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or national 
     origin,''.

     SEC. 7. EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Rules of Construction.--Title VII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 is amended by inserting after section 701 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e) the following:

     ``SEC. 701A. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Section 1106 shall apply to this title except that for 
     purposes of that application, a reference in that section to 
     an `unlawful practice' shall be considered to be a reference 
     to an `unlawful employment practice'.''.
       (b) Unlawful Employment Practices.--Section 703 of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended--
       (1) in the section header, by striking ``sex,'' and 
     inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'';
       (2) except in subsection (e), by striking ``sex,'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``enterprise,'' and 
     inserting ``enterprise, if, in a situation in which sex is a 
     bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are 
     recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender 
     identity,''.
       (c) Other Unlawful Employment Practices.--Section 704(b) of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``sex,'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),''; and
       (2) by striking ``employment.'' and inserting ``employment, 
     if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational 
     qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in 
     accordance with their gender identity.''.
       (d) Claims.--Section 706(g)(2)(A) of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 (2000e-5(g)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``sex,'' 
     and inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),''.
       (e) Employment by Federal Government.--Section 717 of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``sex,'' and inserting 
     ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sex'' and inserting 
     ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),''.
       (f) Government Employee Rights Act of 1991.--The Government 
     Employee Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 301(b), by striking ``sex,'' and inserting 
     ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),'';
       (2) in section 302(a)(1), by striking ``sex,'' and 
     inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 305. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND CLAIMS.

       ``Sections 1101(b), 1106, and 1107 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 shall apply to this title except that for purposes of 
     that application, a reference in that section 1106 to `race, 
     color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity), or national origin' shall be considered to be a 
     reference to `race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, 
     gender identity, national origin, age, or disability'.''.
       (g) Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.--The 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 201(a)(1) (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)) by inserting 
     ``(including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' 
     before ``or national origin,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of title II (42 U.S.C. 1311 et 
     seq.) the following:

     ``SEC. 208. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND CLAIMS.

       ``Sections 1101(b), 1106, and 1107 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 shall apply to section 201 (and remedial provisions 
     of this Act related to section 201) except that for purposes 
     of that application, a reference in that section 1106 to 
     `race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and 
     gender identity), or national origin' shall be considered to 
     be a reference to `race, color, religion, sex (including 
     sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, 
     age, or disability'.''.
       (h) Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.--Chapter 23 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page H3933]]

       (1) in section 2301(b)(2), by striking ``sex,'' and 
     inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'';
       (2) in section 2302--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``(including 
     sexual orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or 
     national origin,''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or national 
     origin;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2307. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND CLAIMS.

       ``Sections 1101(b), 1106, and 1107 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 shall apply to this chapter (and remedial provisions 
     of this title related to this chapter) except that for 
     purposes of that application, a reference in that section 
     1106 to `race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), or national origin' shall 
     be considered to be a reference to `race, color, religion, 
     sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), 
     national origin, age, a handicapping condition, marital 
     status, or political affiliation'.''.

     SEC. 8. INTERVENTION.

       Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000h-2) is amended by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' before ``or national 
     origin,''.

     SEC. 9. MISCELLANEOUS.

       Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 1101 through 1104 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000h et seq.) and sections 1105 and 1106 (42 U.S.C. 2000h-5, 
     2000h-6) as sections 1102 through 1105 and sections 1108 and 
     1109, respectively;
       (2) by inserting after the title heading the following:

     ``SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX 
     (referred to individually in sections 1106 and 1107 as a 
     `covered title'):
       ``(1) Race; color; religion; sex; sexual orientation; 
     gender identity; national origin.--The term `race', `color', 
     `religion', `sex' (including `sexual orientation' and `gender 
     identity'), or `national origin', used with respect to an 
     individual, includes--
       ``(A) the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), or national origin, 
     respectively, of another person with whom the individual is 
     associated or has been associated; and
       ``(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
     concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), or national origin, 
     respectively, of the individual.
       ``(2) Gender identity.--The term `gender identity' means 
     the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other 
     gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless 
     of the individual's designated sex at birth.
       ``(3) Including.--The term `including' means including, but 
     not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning 
     in Federal law.
       ``(4) Sex.--The term `sex' includes--
       ``(A) a sex stereotype;
       ``(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical 
     condition;
       ``(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and
       ``(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.
       ``(5) Sexual orientation.--The term `sexual orientation' 
     means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
       ``(b) Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(1) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a 
     related medical condition shall not receive less favorable 
     treatment than other physical conditions; and
       ``(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall 
     not be denied access to a shared facility, including a 
     restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in 
     accordance with the individual's gender identity.''; and
       (3) by inserting after section 1105 the following:

     ``SEC. 1106. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) Sex.--Nothing in section 1101 or the provisions of a 
     covered title incorporating a term defined or a rule 
     specified in that section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice 
     on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical 
     condition provided by section 701(k); or
       ``(2) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice 
     on the basis of sex available under any provision of Federal 
     law other than that covered title, prohibiting a practice on 
     the basis of sex.
       ``(b) Claims and Remedies Not Precluded.--Nothing in 
     section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit 
     the claims or remedies available to any individual for an 
     unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex 
     (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or 
     national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 
     1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) 
     or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the 
     Equality Act, regulation, or policy.
       ``(c) No Negative Inference.--Nothing in section 1101 or a 
     covered title shall be construed to support any inference 
     that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of 
     sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual 
     orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.

     ``SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

       ``The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a 
     defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis 
     for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered 
     title.''.

     SEC. 10. HOUSING.

       (a) Fair Housing Act.--The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 802 (42 U.S.C. 3602), by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(p) `Gender identity', `sex', and `sexual orientation' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 1101(a) of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       ``(q) `Race', `color', `religion', `sex' (including `sexual 
     orientation' and `gender identity'), `handicap', `familial 
     status', or `national origin', used with respect to an 
     individual, includes--
       ``(1) the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), handicap, familial status, 
     or national origin, respectively, of another person with whom 
     the individual is associated or has been associated; and
       ``(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
     concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), handicap, familial status, 
     or national origin, respectively, of the individual.'';
       (2) in section 804, by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex,'' each place 
     that term appears;
       (3) in section 805, by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex,'' each place 
     that term appears;
       (4) in section 806, by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex,'';
       (5) in section 808(e)(6), by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex,''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 821. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Sections 1101(b) and 1106 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     shall apply to this title and section 901, except that for 
     purposes of that application, a reference in that section 
     1101(b) or 1106 to a `covered title' shall be considered a 
     reference to `this title and section 901'.

     ``SEC. 822. CLAIMS.

       ``Section 1107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall apply 
     to this title and section 901, except that for purposes of 
     that application, a reference in that section 1107 to a 
     `covered title' shall be considered a reference to `this 
     title and section 901'.''.
       (b) Prevention of Intimidation in Fair Housing Cases.--
     Section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) 
     is amended by inserting ``(including sexual orientation (as 
     such term is defined in section 802 of this Act) and gender 
     identity (as such term is defined in section 802 of this 
     Act)),'' after ``sex,'' each place that term appears.

     SEC. 11. EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Prohibited Discrimination.--Section 701(a)(1) of the 
     Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691(a)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(including sexual orientation and 
     gender identity),'' after ``sex''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 702 of the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) The terms `gender identity', `sex', and `sexual 
     orientation' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     1101(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       ``(g) The term `race', `color', `religion', `national 
     origin', `sex' (including `sexual orientation' and `gender 
     identity'), `marital status', or `age', used with respect to 
     an individual, includes--
       ``(1) the race, color, religion, national origin, sex 
     (including sexual orientation and gender identity), marital 
     status, or age, respectively, of another person with whom the 
     individual is associated or has been associated; and
       ``(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
     concerning the race, color, religion, national origin, sex 
     (including sexual orientation and gender identity), marital 
     status, or age, respectively, of the individual.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Sections 1101(b) and 1106 of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 shall apply to this title, except that for purposes of 
     that application--
       ``(1) a reference in those sections to a `covered title' 
     shall be considered a reference to `this title'; and
       ``(2) paragraph (1) of such section 1101(b) shall apply 
     with respect to all aspects of a credit transaction.''.
       (c) Relation to State Laws.--Section 705(a) of the Equal 
     Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691d(a)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'' after ``sex''.
       (d) Civil Liability.--Section 706 of the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691e) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(l) Section 1107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall 
     apply to this title, except that for purposes of that 
     application, a reference in that section to a `covered title' 
     shall be considered a reference to `this title'.''.

     SEC. 12. JURIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 121 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 1862, by inserting ``(including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity),'' after ``sex,'';
       (2) in section 1867(e), in the second sentence, by 
     inserting ``(including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'' after ``sex,'';
       (3) in section 1869--
       (A) in subsection (j), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subsection (k), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) `gender identity', `sex', and `sexual orientation' 
     have the meanings given such terms

[[Page H3934]]

     under section 1101(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
       ``(m) `race', `color', `religion', `sex' (including `sexual 
     orientation' and `gender identity'), `economic status', or 
     `national origin', used with respect to an individual, 
     includes--
       ``(1) the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), economic status, or 
     national origin, respectively, of another person with whom 
     the individual is associated or has been associated; and
       ``(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
     concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual 
     orientation and gender identity), economic status, or 
     national origin, respectively, of the individual.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1879. Rules of construction and claims

       ``Sections 1101(b), 1106, and 1107 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 shall apply to this chapter, except that for purposes 
     of that application, a reference in those sections to a 
     `covered title' shall be considered a reference to `this 
     chapter'.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1879. Rules of construction and claims.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
90 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Equality 
Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other core civil 
rights statutes to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill would also strengthen 
nondiscrimination protections for women and others.
  Today is a historic day: the first time a comprehensive LGBTQ civil 
rights bill has come to the floor of the House. This long overdue 
legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans protections from 
being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of 
their homes simply because of who they are.
  Much of the history of the United States has been about expanding the 
definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of 
Independence says, ``all men are created equal.''
  When these words were first written, that phrase did not include 
Black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not 
include women; and it certainly did not include LGBTQ individuals.
  At this moment, we have an opportunity to continue our march towards 
justice, to enshrine in our Nation's laws protections for marginalized 
communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas 
of life and to provide them recourse in the face of discrimination.
  Despite what opponents to the bill may say, we know these protections 
can work. We know that our existing Federal nondiscrimination laws have 
helped millions of Americans.
  We know that protections for sexual orientation and gender identity 
have worked in more than 20 States and that, in these places, women 
still have rights, religious freedom is still protected, parents are 
still involved in their children's healthcare, and doctors are still 
free to exercise their professional medical judgment. Transgender 
individuals play sports, and sometimes they win and sometimes they 
lose, just like everyone else.
  But the ability to have a job, to receive medical care, or to rent a 
home should not depend on who someone is or where they happen to live. 
We cannot accept the situation where anyone in this country can get 
married on Sunday and legally be fired on Monday because of who they 
love.
  For decades, the LGBTQ community has been coming to Congress to tell 
us their stories. We have heard of transgender women being fired from 
their jobs, lesbian couples being kicked out of their homes, and gay 
men being denied medical care. It is time we stop asking them to come 
to the Capitol just to defend their existence.
  The question before us is not whether the LGBTQ community faces 
outrageous and immoral discrimination, for the record shows that it 
clearly does. The question is whether we, as Congress, are willing to 
take action to do something about it. The answer goes straight to the 
heart of who we want to be as a country, and today, that answer must be 
a resounding and unequivocal ``yes.''
  To the thousands of LGBTQ people who have shared their stories, I 
say: Thank you for your bravery. Thank you for reliving your trauma to 
help build the case for this legislation--to build the case for 
expanding freedom in this country.
  We hear you; we see you; we believe you. And we will continue 
fighting for you.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Representative Cicilline) 
for his tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to 
shepherd it through the legislative process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, there are some fundamental principles that we all 
ought to be able to agree on: Don't hurt other people; respect the 
right of doctors to do no harm; respect the right of parents to protect 
their children.
  Now, the bill before us today could have affirmed the right of every 
adult to declare their own gender consistent with these principles. 
Unfortunately, it violates these principles in the most fundamental 
ways. And this isn't speculation. Many States have already adopted 
similar laws, so we can see, firsthand, the result of them.
  This bill harms people in so many ways: destroying safe spaces for 
women, undermining women-owned businesses, intimidating the free 
exercise of conscience. But let me concentrate on one aspect, the 
destructive impact it has on women's sports.
  Wherever these laws are imposed, biological males have begun to 
dominate women's competitions. Listen to 16-year-old Selina Soule of 
Connecticut. She tells the story of qualifying for the prestigious 
Middletown Invite.
  She says this: ``Eight of us lined up at the starting line . . . but 
when six of us were only about three-quarters into the race, two girls 
were already across the finish line. . . . What just happened? Two boys 
identifying as girls happened. Fair is no longer the norm. The chance 
to advance, the chance to win has been all over for us. . . . I missed 
the chance to compete in the New England Championship this past season 
because of this.''

  And she goes on to say: ``The CAAC won't listen to my voice, but I 
hope Congress will. . . . H.R. 5 will endanger women and girls of all 
ages by opening up every sports team in the country to any male who 
self-identifies as female. This policy will take away our medals, 
records, scholarships, and dreams.''
  And we know this will happen because it already has. And we know it 
is the intent of the bill because Congressman Steube offered an 
amendment: ``Nothing in this act may be construed to require a 
biological female to face competition from a biological male in any 
sporting event.'' The Democrats voted it down on a party-line vote.
  Sorry, Selina, but if you are looking for fairness from this 
majority, you have come to the wrong place.
  Now, this bill could have protected the professional judgment of 
doctors, but it doesn't. At our hearing on May 1, Mr. Cicilline said: 
``What H.R. 5 does is to ensure that transgender people, including 
young people, are not denied care because of their gender identity.''
  Well, what is care for gender identity? Cross-sex hormones, puberty 
blockers, and surgery. Refuse to provide it on the self-diagnosis of a 
child and you have just broken the law.
  Indeed, Johns Hopkins University, which pioneered sex reassignment 
surgery, stopped the practice because they saw the long-term harm it 
did to their patients.
  And we know that is the intent of the bill as well, because I offered 
an amendment: ``Nothing in this act shall

[[Page H3935]]

be construed to require healthcare providers to affirm the self-
professed gender identity of a minor,'' and the Democrats voted it down 
on a straight party-line vote.
  Listen to one anguished parent, Elaine, tell her story. She says: 
``Let me explain to you how this works. If you take your child to a 
clinic to seek help, affirmative care means the . . . professionals 
must accept a child's professed gender identity. . . . Under 
`conversion therapy' bans, questioning a child's professed gender 
identity is now illegal. So, if a little boy is 5 years old and 
believes he is the opposite sex, affirmative care means going along 
with his beliefs. Parents are encouraged to refer to him as their 
`daughter' and let him choose a feminine name. Teachers are told to let 
him use the girls bathroom at school. Therapists will reassure parents 
that social transition is harmless and reversible. Is it really 
harmless to tell a child who still believes in the tooth fairy that he 
is of the opposite sex? . . . If a 10-year-old girl is uncomfortable 
with her developing body and suddenly insists she is a boy, affirmative 
care means blocking this girl's puberty with powerful drugs.''
  And we know this will happen because it already has. And we know this 
is the intent of the bill because Congressman   Mike Johnson offered an 
amendment: ``Nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act may 
be construed to deny a parent's right to be involved in their minor 
child's medical care.'' And the Democrats voted that amendment down on 
a party-line vote.
  Elaine goes on to say: ``I am speaking out because I love my 
daughter. And it is because of her that I know what I have told you is 
true. She has been a victim of `gender affirming' medical procedures, 
and I was powerless to stop doctors from harming her.''
  I am sorry, Elaine. The House majority doesn't care, and it isn't 
listening. This is the brave new world that House Democrats propose 
under the name, ``equality.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5, the Equality 
Act.
  I have to stop for a second and take in this momentous occasion, for 
I have the honor of being on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, speaking in favor of a bill that I have worked on for 
the past 5 years that will finally give full legal equality to the 
LGBTQ community here in America. This is truly historic.
  I want to thank Chairman Nadler, who has been an unwavering ally in 
support of LGBTQ rights throughout his career, and thank Speaker 
Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and our whip,   James Clyburn, who have all 
showed tremendous leadership in helping to get this bill to the floor.
  I want to acknowledge and thank my LGBTQ Equality Caucus co-chairs, 
who have shown extraordinary leadership, not just in blazing a trail 
for future LGBTQ leaders, but in being friends and partners in this 
fight to get where we are today.
  I also want to thank our colleagues in the Senate for their 
extraordinary leadership. And, most importantly, we wouldn't be here 
today without the determined efforts of the advocates and allies in the 
civil rights and LGBTQ rights community who banded together to fight 
for the common values of dignity and equality under the law.
  Throughout my life, I have seen, firsthand, the struggles that many 
in my community have faced in achieving the American Dream. The right 
to live freely, without fear of persecution or discrimination, is one 
many in the LGBTQ community felt was an impossibility for so long.
  The fact that we are here today about to vote on this legislation, 
which has the bipartisan support of 241 Members of the House is, in and 
of itself, an achievement. It was not easy to get here.
  It was only 4 short years ago that the Supreme Court struck down the 
Defense of Marriage Act, finally allowing members of the LGBTQ 
community to marry in every State.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the law of the land until 6 years ago, and 
today, the Trump administration is forcing the men and women in our 
Armed Forces back into the closet and taking steps to target the LGBTQ 
community in a variety of ways.
  The forces working against progress are strong, but together, we are 
stronger. We have made great strides in fighting for LGBTQ rights under 
the law, but make no mistake, there are many people in this country, 
including in this administration, who are actively working to undermine 
our hard-fought gains.

                              {time}  0930

  That is why it is so significant that we have such strong and diverse 
support for the Equality Act.
  And I don't just mean 241 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. Look at 
the 47 bipartisan sponsors in the Senate, the more than 200 businesses 
in every State in the country who have endorsed the bill, and the 
dozens of associations, advocacy groups, civil rights groups, and faith 
groups that back it.
  The Equality Act has the support of a majority of the American people 
in every State. Let that sink in. In every single State in the country, 
the American people think it is time to protect the LGBTQ community.
  There is nothing more central to the idea of America, nothing that 
has contributed more to the exceptionalism of our country and the 
prosperity of America than the guarantee of equal protection of the law 
for every single American.
  They support this bill all across this country because it makes 
sense, it is common sense. It adds sexual orientation and gender 
identity as protected classes through existing civil rights law, 
ensuring that the LGBTQ community enjoys the same protections as 
everyone else, nothing more and nothing less.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about 
what the Equality Act doesn't do. There has been a lot of 
misinformation about this bill floating around, and I want to ensure 
that my colleagues and the American people understand the facts.
  The Equality Act doesn't force priests or other clergy to perform 
same sex marriages or any other religious ceremony against their 
beliefs.
  It doesn't eliminate women's colleges, fraternities, or sororities, 
or other nondiscriminatory sex-segregated program.
  The Equality Act doesn't prevent parents from having control of their 
children's medical decisions or force doctors to provide treatment 
against their best judgment or religious beliefs.
  And the Equality Act doesn't eliminate women's sports.
  The Equality Act doesn't force churches to act as public 
accommodations or eliminate the ability of religious institutions to 
accept Federal money.
  Here is what the Equality Act does. It ensures that every child of an 
LGBTQ parent will not be turned away from the pediatrician's office.
  It ensures that transgender teenagers can attend school without fear 
for their safety.
  And it ensures that LGBTQ employees can't get married on Saturday, 
post pictures on social media on Sunday, and they get fired on Monday.
  The Equality Act is quite literally a life-saving bill that addresses 
some of the fundamental inequalities that still exist in the American 
legal system.
  The time is now. The moment is here. Future generations will look 
back on this day as the moment where our elected leaders showed what 
side of history they are on.
  We are on the right side of history. Let's pass the Equality Act 
today with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the additional 
time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, the so-called Equality Act, should really be 
called the ``Forfeiting Women's Rights Act.''

[[Page H3936]]

  According to multiple experts, lawyers, and organizations, H.R. 5 
would indeed prohibit, in all circumstances, under penalty of Federal 
law, any acknowledgement of the reality of biological sex; would allow 
anyone at any time to declare that he or she identifies as the opposite 
sex, without any medical or psychological diagnosis.
  It would erase women and girls' rights by requiring facilities, such 
as schools, churches, dormitories, domestic violence shelters, homeless 
shelters, to allow biological males who identify as women in women's 
bathrooms, women's and girls' shelters, women's and girls' showers, and 
in women's locker rooms.
  This will indeed violate women's privacy and can ultimately violate 
their safety.
  The danger to women when biological men seek to claim female identity 
should seem obvious, but it is being ignored by proponents of this 
bill.
  H.R. 5 puts women at risk by promoting a Federal law that would 
overrule any restriction on gender identity claims and abolish the 
protections of biological sex-specific practices and spaces.
  H.R. 5 will eliminate women and girls' sports by requiring that men 
and boys be allowed to compete in women's and girls' sports. This is 
already happening.
  H.R. 5 will also require doctors to provide sex change surgeries and 
sex change hormones to adolescents without parental consent and without 
a medical or psychological diagnosis. This could permanently sterilize 
young girls.
  H.R. 5 denies constitutional religious protections by totally 
eliminating the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was 
supported by so many Democrats back then, and this is being done for 
the first time ever since the act was passed.
  Congress should only pass laws that protect women, not threaten, 
silence, or abandon them.
  In fact, H.R. 5 puts everything that women have worked so hard to 
gain, opportunities and protections, at risk.
  I believe that in our society, laws should seek to protect the safety 
and privacy of every woman and girl.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this bill actually does the opposite.
  H.R. 5 prioritizes the rights of some Americans over the rights of 
others. This is not equality. This is far from it.
  Madam Speaker, I speak before you now willing and desiring to work 
with any and all of my colleagues on policies that will truly promote 
women's rights and equality. However, this bill, unfortunately, does 
neither.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I urge opposition of this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chair of the Education and Labor 
Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today is a historic day. Sixty-
five years ago today, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of 
Education that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal and, 
therefore, unconstitutional.
  Today is also a historic day for the LGBTQ community, because today 
the House of Representatives will pass the Equality Act.
  Over the last decade, we have made progress in securing rights for 
the LGBT community, including marriage equality and the repeal of Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell. However, many legal barriers still remain.
  Only a handful of States have explicit laws barring discrimination 
based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public 
accommodations, and even fewer have protections for gender identity.
  The inconsistent patchwork of State laws leaves many people 
vulnerable to discrimination at work, at school, and in many other 
parts of their daily lives.
  As chairman, I was proud to hold a hearing on this important civil 
rights legislation in the Committee on Education and Labor. Witnesses 
testified that all too many Americans are experiencing discrimination 
in their everyday lives, especially the workplace, and even in the 
educational system, where many of them are experiencing discrimination, 
even in elementary school. This is not acceptable.
  This bill also ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 
the RFRA, cannot be used as a free pass to discriminate.
  RFRA was originally enacted as a shield to serve as a safeguard for 
religious freedom, but recently it has been used as a sword to cut down 
the civil rights of too many individuals.
  Freedom from discrimination is a core American value.
  Madam Speaker, passage of this bill is long overdue. We must affirm 
that all Americans are equally protected from discrimination under the 
law. I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding and for his tireless work exposing the deep 
flaws in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise as the leader of the Republicans on the 
Education and Labor Committee, which should have had an opportunity to 
consider this legislation fully, considering its vast implications for 
educational institutions and employers.
  We did not have that opportunity. Instead, we had a single 
subcommittee hearing.
  As a fierce advocate for the Education and Labor Committee, I would 
never deem any subcommittee unimportant, but it was the subcommittee 
with the smallest membership.
  On top of that, somehow the decision was made to bring this bill to 
the floor under a closed rule with no amendments. So, I commend my 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work on behalf of all 
of us.
  This bill may have ``equality'' in its title, but it does not serve 
all people.
  Its mandates for specific accommodations in shared facilities puts 
job creators, particularly those in small businesses, schools, and 
other community-serving facilities on the hook for Washington's half-
baked ideas.
  Its vague and circular definitions of gender identity will lead only 
to uncertainty, litigation, and harm to individuals and organizations 
that will be forced to comply with a law the authors don't even seem to 
understand.
  This is a classic example of passing something now and figuring out 
what it actually means later.
  We have been here before. If the Devil is in the details, we are in 
for a lot of devilish surprises.
  This is no small price for some greater good, as the bill's 
proponents have argued.
  Opening schools and workplaces to expanded liability based on, as the 
bill states, a ``perception or belief, even if inaccurate,'' of 
suspected discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat those words, because they are so 
unbelievable: ``a perception or belief, even if inaccurate,'' of 
suspected discrimination.
  How can we write legislation like this? It would have untold chilling 
effects on hiring, career advancement, and one could easily see 
discourse in the classroom.
  Where the bill is alarmingly clear, however, is in its meticulous and 
intentional destruction of religious freedom protections.
  American employers and educators have grown accustomed to clumsy and 
misguided mandates coming down from Washington shrouded in good 
intentions. Other laws under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
Labor Committee are littered with them, but this time something is 
different.
  The provision in H.R. 5 that guts the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act of 1993 is clear in its intent. This bill is a brazen attempt to 
replace timeless, inherent religious liberties with the identity 
politics of the moment.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have been given 
the benefit of the doubt on the rest of this bill.
  Careless and shortsighted legislation is what they have done best for 
many years, but this fevered grasping, this hysterical clawing at 
individual Americans who hold personal religious convictions, 
represents a major departure from where the debate in this Chamber has 
been before.

[[Page H3937]]

  I sincerely hope it is temporary, for the sake of this body, and more 
importantly, for the sake of the people we represent.
  I hope this bill, which faces certain failure in the Senate, will be 
remembered as a failed experiment in oppressive legislating and not the 
first-time move in a new, sustained attack on religious freedom.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the cochair of the Equality Caucus.
  Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is not about a red herring about men wanting to 
play in women's sports. Please.
  This is about people like my husband, Phil, and I. We have been 
married for almost 13 years. We are a pretty boring married couple, 
probably not all that different than most people in Congress.
  We try to sleep in a little on the weekends, we sometimes argue over 
what to watch on TV, and we cherish the limited time we have with our 
friends and family.
  And we are really lucky, because we live in Wisconsin, the first 
State in the Nation to pass a gay and lesbian civil rights bill back in 
1982, and it was signed by a Republican Governor, but that is not true 
for a majority of America.
  If we pass the Equality Act, people like Phil and I can be free to 
love who we love, and we can live where we want to live, and we can 
work where we want to work without being fired or evicted simply 
because of who we are or who we love.
  That is pretty simple, pretty normal, pretty American.
  Today, we here in Congress can protect our LGBTQ constituents who 
want to live a life like Phil and mine, like yours, free of unfair 
prejudice and discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that Members will do the right thing today and 
join me in supporting the Equality Act.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for being here 
today and covering for us.
  Madam Speaker, again, we have talked about this: The Democrats in 
this bill are pushing something quickly. We have talked about this many 
times and sometimes I just want to talk about this because I feel that, 
however well-intentioned the bill is, it is not coming under full 
scrutiny. After considering only four members in the committee and 
rejecting each of them, including three that simply added rules of 
construction, the chairman requested the House consider this bill under 
a closed rule, and his request was granted. Now, we can disagree about 
policy, but it is hard to argue this bill wouldn't have been improved 
by full debate about what the bill says in consideration of as many 
amendments as possible.
  Americans can all agree that everyone deserves to be treated with 
respect. No one should be mistreated by his employers, coworkers, or, 
frankly, anyone else. However, when lawmakers propose amendments to 
Federal law, we must avoid doing more harm than good. We also must not 
pass legislation that could harm children; set back the rights of women 
they have fought so hard to obtain; and erase the gains made possible 
by other Federal civil rights laws, such as Title IX. H.R. 5 does all 
these things. This bill would do much more harm than good in many ways, 
and the people who would bear it the most would be the women and 
children who would get the brunt of the damage.
  Again, we can have disagreements on what we believe this to be, but 
without a full vetting on the possibilities, all the nice language 
today about what it would or would not do and what it is supposed to do 
gets under the scrutiny of what the law actually says. That is the part 
that I have the most problem with, not the intent, not the desire, that 
is something we fight about--and we do--and the goodness, I never 
question. It is how you go about it.
  I made this statement on this floor before, Madam Speaker, what makes 
you feel good does not often heal you. And today may make us feel good, 
but in the end probably will not do what we intend it to do. And that 
is a concern, especially with the way this bill has come to the floor.
  I know this has been a consideration. We considered female sports in 
which, last year, two male athletes won the top two spots in a 
Connecticut girls class S indoor track meet. One of those female 
athletes finished eighth and missed an opportunity to compete in front 
of college coaches by two places. In her words, ``We all know the 
outcome of the race before it even starts; it's demoralizing.'' 
Allowing men to compete against women in women's sports isn't 
demoralizing because female athletes like Selina aren't talented, it is 
demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant.
  I don't say this. This is not Doug Collins' opinion. This is also the 
opinion of tennis great, Martina Navratilova, who explained the threat 
H.R. 5 poses to women's sports: ``Unless you want to completely remake 
what women's sports mean, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There 
is nothing stereotypical about this--it's about fairness and it's about 
science.'' And that came after she made initial comments, went back 
after being criticized for them, reviewed it, looked at everything, and 
then came back with that statement. She basically, again, doubled down 
and agreed on what she was saying. And she is one not to back away from 
those needing equality.
  If H.R. 5 becomes law, others will be asking, What did we do at this 
moment when we had a chance to look at a bill that maybe we could look 
at and fix or make it better, but we didn't?
  Never before in American history has a political party tried so 
dramatically to rewrite the Federal civil rights laws to include an 
undefined, self-referential, ideologically driven term called ``gender 
identity'' in the U.S. Code, applicable to literally any entity that 
receives Federal assistance, including elementary schools, colleges, 
and healthcare centers nationwide. H.R. 5 would make self-reporting of 
gender identity a protected class under Federal law and require doctors 
and educators to blindly follow the self-reporting of adolescents and 
young adults. Healthcare protocols and even state law would be no 
defense, as they would be superseded by this Federal law under the 
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I know this has been debated and 
characterized from my friends across the aisle as not true, but a plain 
reading of the text says it is true, and this is something we have to 
deal with.
  We heard proponents of H.R. 5 call people who oppose it as either 
ignorant, bigoted, oppressive, or hateful. I will not make similar 
characterizations across the aisle of my friends. I believe we have a 
genuine disagreement here. That is what this House floor is for, but, 
unfortunately, it is a closed rule today and has been relatively closed 
in the process up until this point.
  Madam Speaker, I implore my colleagues to listen to the stories of 
stakeholders everywhere, including the transgender girls and boys this 
bill is meant to help. We may be hurting them by allowing doctors to 
prescribe hormones and perform major surgeries on adolescents without 
parental consent or involvement. In fact, H.R. 5 would actually compel 
doctors to medicalize children without even consulting their parents. 
Families of transgender children are begging Congress to listen to 
them.
  But, also, H.R. 5 endangers the First Amendment rights of every 
single American. Because the bill makes no provision for sincerely-held 
religious belief, it would criminalize the fundamental tenets of major 
world religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Biological 
sex is a scientific reality, yet H.R. 5 would target faith traditions 
that acknowledge it as such and want to live their lives accordingly.

[[Page H3938]]

  Today, we must listen to all Americans, including the LGBTQ 
community, and recognize many within the community have also raised 
concerns about this legislation. H.R. 5, in the words of the Women's 
Liberation Front leader, nullifies ``women and girls as a coherent 
legal category, worthy of civil rights protection.'' It would endanger 
millions of American women and undermine fundamental American rights to 
faith in both religion and science, and actively put children at risk 
by medicalizing them in harmful and permanent ways without parental 
involvement.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this bill, which is being rushed to the floor without Members having an 
opportunity to vote on amendments and I believe carefully considering 
what is being put before them.
  Again, Madam Speaker, think about what we are asking here. For the 
first time, something was raised in our committee hearing that said: Do 
you think people would commit fraud by doing all these changes and 
going through medical procedures and everything, that they would do 
that just to simply commit fraud? Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, and 
to anyone listening this morning, this bill does not require any of 
that. It requires nothing except a self-admonishment or knowledge that 
I am what I say I am today. That is all this bill requires.
  So many of us are just asking: Is there a better way to do this? Is 
there a better way to look at this? Probably not. But this way, this is 
not right and is being rushed.
  Again, as I started with today, I will sort of end as well, sometimes 
what makes you feel good--and I understand the majority's desire to 
bring this forward and to a fulfill a promise, I get it--but, in the 
end, is it also going to do what you want it to do in the long-run? Or 
are there going to be unintended consequences that we don't want to 
acknowledge today in our rush to do something we promised? Sometimes it 
is better to back up and make sure it is right before we can fulfill a 
promise.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to 
support the Equality Act. I will not repeat the many eloquent things my 
colleagues have said about the importance of the proposed legislation, 
though I will thank the gentleman from New York and from Rhode Island 
for their leadership and others. Nor will I refute the many foolish and 
false things said on the other side.
  This is landmark and essential civil rights protection for those who 
now don't have it. It is no more, it is no less than others enjoy. It 
respects the First Amendment and the exercise of religion in exactly 
the same way as we do now for every other civil rights context. It puts 
the law on the side of those who continue to face invidious 
discrimination based not on their character, but on who they are.
  Many others have said this better than I will, but, Madam Speaker, I 
do want to speak to one group of my colleagues: those who know this is 
a good bill and, yet today, will vote no. To those colleagues, I ask 
you to consider the score.
  In this Chamber, we are all familiar with scores. A score is what 
some powerful group usually threatens us with when they fear we will 
vote for something because we believe it is the right thing to do. It 
often works that way. We believe a vote is right, but don't vote that 
way, they say, or we will score it against you. That is how Washington 
scores.
  But, history scores differently. Conscience has its own rules. 
Decency sees something beyond such agendas. History records the good. 
Conscience aligns with what is right. Decency endures the unfair 
attacks and protects what truly matters.
  This is a good and simple bill of extraordinary historical 
importance. It sits high above our daily considerations. Each of us in 
our careers will be lucky if we come to this floor on a single day when 
history is made, on a day when, by our vote, we can count ourselves 
among those who have cared for and who have nurtured the original 
promise embedded in our founding documents.
  Others have done much more than we will do today or any day: on the 
battlefield, or in Seneca Falls, or on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, or 
simply in their daily dignified decisions to love their neighbors as 
themselves.
  Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues are good and decent people. Let 
conscience guide us to the right, and, please, support this bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5. As 
many of my colleagues have stated, there are a number of very troubling 
issues with this legislation. In my mind, perhaps none is more 
troubling than the bill's explicit carveout from the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, also known as RFRA.
  Under the First Amendment, Americans are blessed with the freedom of 
religion. This is much more than the freedom of worship. Not only do 
Americans have the right to worship as they see fit, their faith is not 
confined to what happens inside their place of worship. They have the 
right to practice their religion every day as they see fit.
  For many years, there was a strong, bipartisan agreement that 
protecting this right was of the utmost importance. In the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, religious protections enjoyed bipartisan support. 
Likewise, RFRA was heralded as an historic, bipartisan achievement.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment 
Division v. Smith, which rolled back longstanding constitutional 
protections for religious liberty, the Congress came together and 
restored broad protections for religious freedom under RFRA.
  RFRA was introduced by then-Representative Chuck Schumer and Senator 
Ted Kennedy. It passed unanimously in the House and by a vote of 97-3 
in the Senate, and it was signed into law by President Clinton.

  For nearly two decades, RFRA has been the hallmark of protecting the 
religious freedom of Americans against the weight of a powerful Federal 
Government. Contrary to what some of its recent opponents claim, RFRA 
is not an automatic opt out of any law for people of faith. Instead, 
RFRA provides a commonsense balancing test between religious belief and 
government action.
  First, an individual challenging the government must show that they 
have a sincerely held belief that is being substantially burdened by 
the government--that is, there is a real matter of faith actually being 
affected by the government's actions. If the individual successfully 
shows that, they do not automatically win their claim.
  The government may then show that it has a compelling interest--that 
is, a good reason--to interfere with the individual's religious rights 
and that the interference is the least restrictive means to accomplish 
the government's goals--that is, the government doesn't have a better 
alternative.
  This test provides fairness for both sides. Unfortunately, today, the 
House proposes to break this historic protection and say that RFRA will 
not apply to the Equality Act. It is clear why they have done this.
  Without RFRA, it is less likely that faith-based charities and 
organizations will be able to uphold the faith of their organization 
when it runs counter to evolving norms on human sexuality.
  Without RFRA, it is less likely that Christian colleges and 
universities will be able to teach and uphold a biblical understanding 
of marriage and human sexuality.
  Without RFRA, it is less likely that parents in public schools will 
be able to opt their children out of mandated education that teaches 
human sexuality contrary to their family's religious faith.
  Unfortunately, the modern Democratic Party has decided that mandating 
its beliefs on everyone is more important than upholding the rights of 
people of faith and those who possess contrary beliefs.
  Madam Speaker, that is truly radical and deeply troubling. It is 
unprecedented. It is contrary to the values and foundational freedoms 
of this country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. 
Protecting the rights of some cannot come

[[Page H3939]]

at the high cost of stripping away the rights of others, particularly 
when it comes to protecting religious liberty.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I 
thank Mr. Cicilline.
  Let me refute the suggestion that this is a bill that was rushed to 
the floor. This is a work that has been germinating for 5 years plus, 
and many of us have watched and been engaged in meetings and 
collaboration to ensure that the bill would reflect all of what America 
is about.
  I want to speak to my religious friends--that is, all of us claim a 
religion of some form--and I want to say to them that religious liberty 
is not dead, but it is alive.
  This bill focuses on saving lives; it focuses on understanding what 
it means to be transgender and denied the right to serve in the United 
States military. It stands up for African American transgender women 
who have been killed in the South, in the region that I live in; and it 
stands up for the person who knocked on the door and could not get 
housing because of their status.
  And so I would ask my friends who are Mormon, Seventh Day Adventists, 
Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and other religions: How would you feel if 
you knocked on a door and you could not get in, if they had no place 
for you at the inn?
  So I am well-aware of the Restorative Act, dealing with religion, 
passed in 1993, but I am also aware of the Supreme Court case, the 
Hodges case in 2015, which said: ``They ask for equal dignity in the 
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.''
  That is what this bill is doing, and the Constitution will protect 
those who are involved in the religious practices. As it has indicated: 
``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
Union.''
  And then you go to the Bill of Rights, and it has as Amendment Number 
I: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  The Constitution will be alongside of the Equality Act, and we will 
be able to have fair housing and civil rights, and we will be able to 
deal with this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pocan). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the 
time.
  It will allow, with this Constitution alongside of the Equality Act, 
the idea that the Civil Rights Act stands for those in the LGBTQ 
community, the Civil Rights Act in title VI and title II and title VII; 
and they will stand alongside of the ACLU and the NAACP and the Urban 
League and LULAC and all of the civil rights groups.
  They will stand alongside those of us who have been fighting for fair 
housing time after time so that, when we knock on the door, no matter 
who you are in this country, you will have the Constitution and the 
Equality Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends and others in the religious community 
to support the Equality Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
``Equality Act of 2019.''
  Let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman 
David Cicilline of Rhode Island, for introducing this landmark 
legislation and his tireless efforts in making this day a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, our nation's long but inexorable march towards equality 
reaches another milestone today.
  For as long as our national charters have been in existence, we have 
endeavored to ask ourselves: what do we mean when we say ``We the 
People?''
  How expansive do we hold our pledge that all are entitled to the 
blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  To be certain our nation has come a long way, but as we debate this 
critical bill, I am reminded of the Supreme Court's decision in 
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __ 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), and its 
powerful conclusion explaining the profound power of love and marriage, 
and the desire to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law:

       No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies 
     the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, 
     and family. In forming a marital union, two people become 
     something greater than once they were. As some of the 
     petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a 
     love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand 
     these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of 
     marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it 
     so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for 
     themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in 
     loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest 
     institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the 
     law. The Constitution grants them that right.

  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.
  The Equality Act has the bipartisan support of Members of Congress, 
with nearly 240 co-sponsors, as well as the strong support of the 
business community, and most important, the overwhelming support of the 
American people.
  More than 70 percent of Americans support the Equality Act.
  This has been a long journey; the first Equality Act was introduced 
nearly 45 years ago.
  It is long past time to secure the civil rights of LGBTQ people 
across the country and accord them full membership in the American 
family.
  With the Trump Administration rolling back protections at the federal 
level and anti-equality opponents continuing to push discriminatory 
bills at the state level, LGBTQ people cannot wait another year for 
affirmation that they are worthy of the dignity of their peers and 
deserving of equal protection of the laws.
  Today, too many LGTBQ Americans in too many places remain too 
vulnerable to discrimination on a daily basis with too little legal 
recourse.
  Fifty percent of the national LGBTQ community live in states where, 
though they may have the right to marry, they have no explicit non-
discrimination protections in other areas of daily life.
  The Equality Act extends the full anti-discrimination protections of 
the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other key pillars of fairness 
and justice in our country to LGBTQ Americans.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity deserve full civil rights 
protections, not just in the workplace, but in every place: in 
education, housing, credit, jury service, public facilities, and public 
accommodations.
  Today, there are only 21 states that have explicit laws barring 
discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and 
public accommodations, and only 20 states have such protections for 
gender identity.
  In most states, a same-sex couple can get married on Saturday, then 
be legally denied service at a restaurant on Sunday, and be fired from 
their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to discuss in more detail several 
of the important elements of the Equality Act.
  The Equality Act amends existing federal civil rights laws to 
explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 
and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, Federal 
jury service, public accommodations, and the use of Federal funds.
  It does so by adding sex in some places where it had not previously 
been protected, and clarifying that sex includes sexual orientation and 
gender identity.
  Specifically, the H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2019'' amends:
  1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic 
protections against discrimination in public accommodations by adding 
sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity;
  2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic 
protections against discrimination by recipients of federal financial 
assistance by adding sex, including sexual orientation, and gender 
identity;
  3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Service 
Reform Act of 1978, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to make explicit protections 
against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or 
gender identity;
  4. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 to make protections against housing 
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit;
  5. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act to make protections against 
credit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity 
explicit; and

[[Page H3940]]

  6. The Jury Selections and Services Act to make protections against 
discrimination in federal jury service based on sexual orientation or 
gender identity explicit.


                          RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS

  The march towards equality has been long and has awoken passions 
passion from many quarters for various reasons.
  Well-intentioned people from all walks of life have had difficulty as 
progress washes over the debate surrounding protections for same sex 
individuals.
  At times, the debate has seen input from members of the faith 
community, who strive to reconcile their love for all of God's sons and 
daughters, with the script of their sacred text.
  I understand this tension, but I have carefully studied the text and 
am confident that passage of the Equality Act will not adversely affect 
any person's freedom of worship of the free exercise of their faith.
  The Equality Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity to 
federal civil rights law and sex where it is missing.
  But the same statutory exemptions that are already in place in the 
Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain in place after 
enactment and the guarantees of the United States Constitution remain 
untouched.
  The U.S. Constitution provides ample protections for religious 
freedom and nothing in this bill would, or could, infringe upon the 
protections afforded by the Constitution, as the principal sponsor of 
the bill, Congressman Cicilline, confirmed during a colloquy we held 
during the markup of the bill in the Judiciary Committee.
  Specifically, the provisions relating to Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act (federal funding) include the original exemptions for 
discrimination based on religion.
  Religious organizations (not just houses of worship) are free to 
limit participation in a wide array of activities and services to only 
members of their faith.
  This same exemption applies to public accommodations.
  Houses of worship could be considered a place of public accommodation 
only if they offer their space or services for commercial public use.
  This does not include religious services.
  Nothing in this bill alters the ability of houses of worship or 
religious leaders to practice or carry out their faith.
  No member of the clergy will ever be compelled to perform a religious 
ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs, including marrying same-sex 
couples.
  The DOJ Title VI Manual and relevant and relevant case law clearly 
provide that a religious organization that is not ``principally 
engaged'' in providing social services is only bound by 
nondiscrimination requirements related to the program for which they 
receive funding if that funding is targeted in order to provide a 
specific program or service, i.e. disaster relief, rather than to the 
entity ``as a whole.''
  Nothing in the Equality Act changes that rule.
  There is a longstanding ministerial exemption in federal civil rights 
law that exempts religious organizations from complying with employment 
nondiscrimination provisions for ministers, rabbis and any other person 
who is ``carrying out the faith''.
  The Equality Act does not alter that exemption in any way.
  The Equality Act does not repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act (RFRA).
  The Equality Act clarifies that RFRA cannot be used to defend 
discrimination in public settings or with federal funds.
  The Equality Act does not alter or amend the RFRA standard for any 
other kinds of claims.
  Federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution provide 
many exemptions for religious organizations.
  It bears stating again that the statutory exemptions that are already 
in place in the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain 
in place and the United States Constitution remains untouched.
  Courts have long-rejected religious claims as a reason to deny civil 
rights protections, including those based on race and sex, and the same 
analysis applies to all other protected characteristics.
  Specifically, religious belief did not exempt restaurants or hotels 
from complying with the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s and 
cannot do so today.
  RFRA explicitly contemplates that Congress would exempt certain laws 
from its application.
  The clarifying language in the Equality Act is necessary to ensure 
that courts do not misinterpret the intended interaction between RFRA 
and our civil rights laws.
  RFRA will still be available to address burdens on religious beliefs 
and practices in other contexts.
  And any individual or organization that is concerned that their 
religious beliefs or practices are being unjustly burdened retains the 
ability to bring a claim under the First Amendment.
  The time has come to extend the full blessings of equality and the 
majesty of the law's protection to all of our brothers and sisters, 
including those in the LGBTQ community.
  Mr. Speaker, it been said that ``the moral arc of the universe is 
long but bends toward justice.''
  Today, with passage by this House of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, we 
bend that arc even more in the direction of justice.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this life-changing and 
life-affirming legislation and urge all members to stand on the right 
of history and vote for its passage.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).
  Mr. SPANO. Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a Christian, and I am 
grateful. I am grateful to have been born in a nation where my beliefs 
and those of every other American are legally protected by our 
Constitution.
  It is no coincidence that the very First Amendment to the 
Constitution guarantees religious liberty. Our Nation was settled by 
men and women from all over the world with divergent beliefs and 
conviction. We were Catholics, Puritans, Lutherans, Jews, Baptists, 
Hindus, Anglicans, Quakers, and Muslims.
  This rich and diverse cultural melting pot was the soil in which the 
guarantees of the First Amendment were planted, sprouted, and grew very 
strong. And over these last 230 years, the freedom of Americans to 
worship and believe as their conscience and their God dictates has 
become deeply and firmly rooted in our Nations's heritage, laws, and 
jurisprudence. But although deeply rooted, I fear we have forgotten and 
neglected its fundamental importance.
  The First Amendment was adopted long ago, but freedom--freedom--is 
always a new idea. Coretta Scott King wisely said: ``Freedom is never 
really won. You earn it and win it in every generation.''
  H.R. 5 is bad for freedom. You see, it would immediately expose 
churches, religious schools, and universities and faith-based 
organizations to legal liability for simply following their earnest 
beliefs. It would essentially allow the government to place its hard 
and unyielding fist inside the church walls to force compliance with 
the convictions and dictates of the State instead of the church.
  H.R. 5 is bad for freedom. It would force small businesses, small 
business owners all across this country to provide services or products 
to the public that may violate their deeply held, faith-based 
convictions, again, allowing the State to essentially impose from 
above, top down, its own moral codes and rules in place of those of the 
individual.
  H.R. 5 is bad for freedom. It is a large leap backward for parental 
rights, pitting physicians against parents, the genuine religious 
convictions of parents when their child seeks life-altering, 
irreversible sex reassignment treatment before that child has even 
developed physically or emotionally, once again, government inserting 
its rigid fist and iron will, this time, directly into the family unit.
  H.R. 5 is bad for freedom. It would, in one fell swoop, deliver a 
crushing blow to the base of the tree of religious liberty, the tree 
that has grown strong and provided shade and protection for many for so 
long.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, anybody who says that this bill would 
dictate to the churches what they may preach or practice doesn't know 
what he is talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Jeffries), the chair of the Democratic Caucus and a senior member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair, and I 
thank my good friend,   David Cicilline, for his extraordinary 
leadership on this incredibly important legislation.
  The words, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal,'' were eloquent in their articulation but incomplete 
in their application.
  As the legendary Barbara Jordan once observed, those words did not 
originally apply to African Americans; they did not apply to people of 
color; they did not apply to Native Americans; they did not apply to 
women; they did not apply to members of the LGBT community.

[[Page H3941]]

  We have come a long way here in the United States of America, but we 
still have work to do.
  If you truly believe in liberty and justice for all, support the 
Equality Act.
  If you truly believe in equal protection under the law, support the 
Equality Act.
  If you truly believe that everybody is created equal and that we are 
all God's children, then support the Equality Act.
  Love does not discriminate, and neither should the law, regardless of 
sexual orientation and regardless of gender identity. It is time to 
support the Equality Act, and let's continue our Nation's long, 
necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect Union.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today representing a district in which 
school sports are at the heart of community gatherings.
  In Kentucky, basketball is a way of life. In my district, students 
practice their whole life to have the chance to attain athletic 
scholarship opportunities from universities they would otherwise be 
unable to attend. These students go on to accomplish great things and 
give back to their communities because of the scholarships they gain 
from athletic competition.
  This legislation would essentially subvert the purpose of gender 
divisions in these competitions by allowing biological males who 
identify as female to compete against girls in the same division. We 
have already seen instances where young women were denied scholarship 
opportunities because biological males competed in the same category 
with them and placed higher on the podium in track competitions.
  A bill with a name like the Equality Act sounds like a bill that in 
some way advocates for all people. That is what we strive for in this 
country: equality before the law. That is why, over the more than two 
centuries this country has existed, we have, thankfully, updated our 
laws to right wrongs and bring us closer to treating all people with 
the dignity they deserve.
  But as I look at H.R. 5, I am deeply troubled, and I believe most 
Americans would be deeply troubled by what is really there.
  I serve as ranking member for the Civil Rights and Human Services 
Subcommittee for the Committee on Education and Labor. In our 
subcommittee, we held a hearing on the Equality Act, and what became 
abundantly clear was that this legislation would alter Federal 
nondiscrimination law in ways that would have unintended effects we 
cannot know today.

  This bill is following in the tradition of others we have seen so far 
throughout this Congress: a clever name, an allegedly noble purpose, 
but a vehicle for serious, harmful consequences.
  Equality and freedom must coexist. H.R. 5 totally redefines one and 
delivers a serious blow to the other.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to strike a bipartisan note and 
invoke a Republican President who made America truly great, Abraham 
Lincoln, who served in this body and spoke of government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people--all the people.
  In 1964, our predecessors in the House stood here and voted 333-85 to 
pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The vast majority of Democrats and 
the vast majority of Republicans voted for it, and we changed America 
by bringing down the walls of racial and ethnic discrimination in 
employment, housing, public accommodations, and education.
  Our predecessors rejected the familiar hysterical arguments that 
equal rights for African Americans in restaurants and hotels and at 
lunch counters meant discrimination against the religious rights of the 
owners of the restaurants and the motels and lunch counters, which is 
precisely the argument that was made back in that day.
  Today, we legislate equal rights under the exact same act for 
millions of Americans in the LGBT community. This is a triumphant and 
glorious moment for the House of Representatives and for the United 
States of America.
  But our friends who now occupy the seats of Lincoln's party tell us 
that children will be able to get surgery without their parents' 
consent. This is false, and this is propaganda.
  Every State in the Union requires parental consent before their minor 
children get surgery, and nothing in this act will affect any of the 
States' laws in any way with respect to parental consent.
  Let's honor Abraham Lincoln. Let's honor the best traditions of the 
United States of America. Let's bring down the walls of discrimination 
against all Americans. Let's pass the Equality Act.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
5, a deceptively named bill that is anything but equalizing. In fact, 
this bill legalizes discrimination, government-imposed, top-down 
discrimination against those with time-honored views of marriage and 
gender.
  This bill should be renamed the ``Inequality Act,'' as its policies 
at the State level have already been used to eliminate safe spaces for 
women, irreparably harm children, trample parental rights, undermine 
the free exercise of religion, and dismantle female athletics.
  As a mother, teacher, and former track coach, I am deeply concerned 
about the implications of this bill on and off the playing field.
  Title 9 of the Civil Rights Act, the provision guaranteeing girls the 
same educational opportunities as boys and which launched competitive 
female sports into the arena, is rendered irrelevant and outdated under 
the Inequality Act.

                              {time}  1015

  Under H.R. 5, high school female athletes will miss competitive 
opportunities because boys take home the medals.
  Selina from Connecticut trained hard, set goals, and persevered, but 
she couldn't overcome the biological advantage men have over women when 
two biological boys who identify as female outpaced her in a recent 
girls' track meet.
  On average, there is a 10 to 12 percent performance gap between elite 
males and elite females in athletics. The gap is smaller between elite 
females and nonelite males but still insurmountable. It is no surprise 
that men are taking home the gold in women's sports.
  In future Olympics, it would only take three biological males who 
identify as female to prevent the best female athletes from reaching 
the medal stand and eight to keep them off the track entirely.
  If we continue down this track, how long will it be before nations 
recruit men identifying as female to out-medal other countries and 
ultimately uproot the ancient tradition of the Olympics?
  To put in this perspective, Olympic, world, and U.S. champion Tori 
Bowie's 100-meter lifetime best time was beaten 15,000 times by men and 
boys. In another case, Olympic, world, and U.S. champion Allyson 
Felix's 400-meter lifetime best was outperformed more than 15,000 times 
by males.
  In case after case, men identifying as women are outcompeting, 
outrunning, outfighting, and outcycling women. Welcome to the brave new 
world of women's sports under H.R. 5.
  The importance of Title IX is found not just on the field. As Duke 
law professor Coleman testified before the House Judiciary Committee, 
``Tens of thousands of girls and women are now eligible for college 
scholarships, ensuring educational opportunities that for many wouldn't 
be realistic otherwise.''
  Unfortunately, H.R. 5 erases these educational opportunities, further 
disenfranchising women. Women-only scholarships would be a thing of the 
past if this bill passes.
  Mr. Speaker, either we want a level playing field for American women 
or we don't.
  I remind my colleagues that next week marks the centennial 
anniversary of this Chamber's historic passage of the 19th Amendment 
granting women the right to vote. It is an honor and a privilege for me 
to stand here on this House floor 100 years later celebrating this 
milestone.
  I find it eerily ironic that today many of my colleagues will 
exercise their 19th Amendment right to turn back the clock on women and 
girls across this country.

[[Page H3942]]

  A vote for this bill is a vote against women. Members from both sides 
of the aisle, especially those who claim to be pro-women and pro-child, 
need to stop this devastating legislation. The future of our girls' 
rights, privacy, protection, and athletic potential depends on it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Garcia), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of 
H.R. 5, the Equality Act. We have made much progress in recent years, 
but the reality is that many still face discrimination because of who 
they are and whom they love.
  As has been well-documented during the legislative record for H.R. 5, 
there are currently no Federal protections for LGBTQ people in the 
United States. So let's refocus on what this bill is really about.
  In 30 States, LGBTQ people can be fired, refused housing, or denied 
services simply because of who they are. The Equality Act would greatly 
extend civil rights for this community, providing protections across 
key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, and jury 
duty.
  In Texas, that means having explicit protections for LGBTQ people for 
the first time in our history. Updating Federal law will tear down 
barriers to prosperity and lead to better outcomes for our families, 
neighbors, and loved ones.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will benefit 
nearly 1 million LGBTQ Texans and countless other Americans.
  Finally, in Texas, when we say y'all, we will mean all.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add that as a woman and as a Catholic, I know 
I am not forfeiting any of my rights, not my women's rights or my 
religious rights. We need to go back and make sure that we pass this 
bill because for once, when we say justice for all at the end of our 
pledge, it should mean justice for all.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my friends 
across the aisle who believe that they are acting on behalf of 
equality. I realize that they believe that their way of approaching 
things includes much more wisdom than that of Moses, who is the only 
great lawgiver depicted in this Chamber with a full face rather than a 
side view.
  I would only submit we are not wiser at this time than Moses. I have 
heard comments from my friends, including my friend the former law 
professor saying he was impressed with the ability of the courts to 
sort out these civil rights issues.
  But as my friend Justice Scalia once told me: If you guys are going 
to screw up legislation over in Congress, don't come running to us all 
the time because you don't know how to make laws that are fair.
  That is what we have here. In an effort borne out of the best 
intentions, we want to help the feelings of people who are gender 
confused or just suffering gender dysphoria, the opposite of euphoria. 
We don't want to hurt their feelings.

  We are told that 25 percent of all women will suffer sexual assault. 
The literature is clear that women suffer post-traumatic stress 
disorder after sexual assault at three to four times the rate that 
soldiers do, and that they are traumatized and retriggered by being in 
a confined space like a dressing room or a restroom when a biological 
man comes into that private area.
  We are going to say to those women: You know what? You have just got 
to get over your trauma because for the less than 1 percent who though 
a biological man but think they may be a woman, so they are confused 
gender-wise, we don't want to hurt their feelings. So you are just 
going to have to get over your trauma.
  This is what is going on here. If you look at the battered women 
shelters around this country, who pays for most of those? It sure 
appears to me, for the ones I see, they are Christian, Salvation Army, 
Catholic. I have been told by many of these folks: We are just barely 
surviving financially. This will force us to change our accommodations, 
and we will go out of business.
  We believe, as Christians, that Moses had it right on males and 
females. Although there are people wiser in their own eyes than Moses 
and Jesus, who said exactly verbatim what Moses did, if an orthodox 
synagogue says, ``You know what? We think men should be rabbis,'' but 
they don't hire the biological woman who says, ``I feel like I am a man 
today,'' then they can be sued. But this bill gives not only the 
claimant the ability to sue but also allows the Attorney General to 
come in with the full force of the United States Government and destroy 
that synagogue or that Christian organization.
  I know there are people here who think, ``I do a whole lot more good 
than these Christian organizations,'' but do you really?
  This is borne out of good intentions, but it is going to be so 
destructive to common sense and to people, to women who have been hurt. 
As we heard in our committee from the second woman to get a scholarship 
under Title IX, you are going to destroy women's scholarships.
  She had a chart there. The three top times for the 400-meter in the 
Olympics of 2016, she said there are thousands of men who have better 
times. I know my friends said in the hearing, ``Gee, we know that men 
would never act like a woman just to get a massive amount of money and 
scholarships.''
  I don't want to hear the majority say later, ``Wow, we really didn't 
think that would happen.'' It is already happening.
  If we are going to preserve the gains made by women under Title IX, 
this needs to fail and not become the law. To preserve what we have 
already done in the way of gains for women, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am so 
proud that the gentleman is in the Chair, as well as others who will 
preside in the course of this historic debate today, Angie Craig being 
one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for giving us this opportunity today to expand freedom in 
America.
  I commend Congressman Cicilline for his extraordinary leadership, his 
courage, and his persistence in introducing this legislation that is so 
important to our country, and doing so with the support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus. To see him standing there with the rest of 
us, honored to join Congressman   John Lewis on the day of announcement 
a while back, a year and a half, 2 years ago, and now in the majority 
for us to have the privilege to bring this legislation to the floor, I 
thank Congressman Cicilline for being a champion of equality in our 
country.
  Again, I salute the Congressional Black Caucus,   John Lewis, and so 
many others, including Mr. Cleaver, who will speak later today.
  It is a deeply powerful moment to be on this floor to talk about this 
important legislation. What I would like to do is take the opportunity 
in the time that I will use to salute the countless activists, 
advocates, outside organizers, and mobilizers who have courageously 
demanded the full fairness and justice that are the rights of all 
Americans.
  On this floor, many of us, including Mr. Hoyer, we all go way back 
when we sparred for funding for HIV and AIDS. We were successful not 
only because of our inside maneuvering but because of the outside 
mobilization.
  We were successful in passing fully inclusive hate crime legislation. 
Barney Frank led the way for us inside, but the outside groups were 
mobilizing, mobilizing, mobilizing.
  Under the leadership of President Barack Obama--and we salute him for 
it--we were able in the Congress in the majority to pass the repeal of 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to put that into the dustbin of history. It was 
successful because of the activism of our outside groups and advocates.

  Then, of course, the horrible Defense of Marriage Act, I don't know 
what marriages they were defending, but the

[[Page H3943]]

Defense of Marriage Act that was proposed by some of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, the Supreme Court gave us that answer 
about justice in our country.
  Then there was the ending of the hateful ban on transgender military 
service.
  For this Congress, this has been the scene where we have fought the 
fight on legislation, fought the fight to present the case in the court 
of public opinion and to bolster the case in the Supreme Court.
  On this monumental day, my thoughts are with Phyllis Lyon and the 
late Del Martin, who shared their lives together for decades. They were 
mentors for civic engagement to many of us in San Francisco for 
decades. Some of that civic engagement related to LGBTQ rights. They 
were an inspiration, as I say, to many of us.
  People say to me, ``It is easy for you to be for some of these things 
because you are from San Francisco. People are so tolerant there.'' I 
say, ``Tolerant? That is a condescending word to me. This is not about 
tolerance. This is about respect of the LGBTQ community. This is about 
taking pride.''
  That is what we do today. For Phyllis and Del and other older LGBTQ 
couples, LGBTQ workers striving to provide for their families, for the 
young people, the LGBTQ youth, this is a transformative moment.
  Fifty years after LGBTQ Americans took to the streets outside of New 
York's Stonewall Inn to fight against harassment and hate, we take 
pride in the progress we have forged together.
  Our Founders, in their great wisdom, wrote in our beautiful preamble 
of the blessings of liberty, which were to be the birthright of all 
Americans.

                              {time}  1030

  To bring our Nation closer to the founding promise of liberty and 
justice for all, we today pass the Equality Act and finally fully end 
discrimination against LGBTQ Americans. LGBTQ people deserve full civil 
rights protection in the workforce and in every place, in education, 
housing, credit, jury duty service, and public accommodations. No one 
should be forced to lose his or her job, their home, or to live in fear 
because of who they are and whom they love.
  This is personal. It is not just about policy. It is about people. 
Earlier this year I received a letter from a trans woman living in San 
Francisco who has faced threats, stalking, and harassment because of 
who she is.
  She says in her communication:

       The fear is very much there. All I want to do is live my 
     life like anyone else. Please keep seeing me.

  Today and for all days, we say to all of our friends: We see you, we 
support you, and we stand with you with pride.
  We look forward to a swift, strong, successful, and, hopefully, 
strongly bipartisan bill today for equality. This is not just an act of 
Congress that we are taking for the LGBTQ progress to the community. 
This is progress for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5.
  To begin, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues and 
express my deep concern for the grave consequences this bill would have 
for religious freedom. This bill would deny religious organizations 
their religious liberty rights guaranteed under the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act of 1993 and force many religious institutions to go 
against their beliefs or risk being in violation of the law. As a 
nation we cannot turn our back on our religious liberties.
  Now, while the religious freedom aspects of this legislation are by 
far the most egregious, there is also another area of serious concern--
the effects of the legislation on female athletes at all levels of 
sporting competition across our country.
  Twice during the consideration of this bill, I have offered an 
amendment to ensure that our daughters are provided an equal playing 
field in sports for generations to come and that female athletes are 
not competing against male athletes for athletic scholarships and title 
IX funding. And twice partisan politics have stopped this commonsense 
proposal from being added to this bill.
  This provision would have simply guaranteed that biological women are 
not forced to compete against biological men at all levels of athletic 
competition. Science has proven time and time again that there is a 
significant performance difference between biological males and females 
from puberty onward.
  From percentage of lean muscle, to heart size, to body fat, to joint 
angles, the bodies of men and women are distinctly unique and produce a 
vast difference in performance ability when it comes to certain 
activities. In fact, there is an average 10- to 12-percent performance 
gap between elite biological male and female athletes.
  These differences are largely due to the large influx of testosterone 
males receive during puberty. Science is very clear here--there is no 
doubt that testosterone is the reason that biological men, as a group, 
perform better than women in sports. That is why both men and women 
dope with androgens that are high in testosterone.
  On average, in elite biological male athletes, there is 30 times more 
testosterone present, leading to physical characteristics that almost 
guarantee a higher rate of success in sporting events. But don't take 
my word for it.
  Here are examples: CeCe Telfer, a biological male, won three titles 
in the Northeast-10 Championships for women's track and received the 
Most Outstanding Track Athlete award.
  Fallon Fox, a biological male, shattered female fighter Tamikka 
Brents' eye socket and gave her a concussion. Brents said she never 
felt so overpowered in her life.
  Gabrielle Ludwig, a 50-year-old, 6-foot-8-inch, 230-pound biological 
male led the Mission College women's basketball team to a national 
championship with the most rebounds.
  The list goes on and on. I, for one, don't think it is fair or equal 
to make young, biological women compete against biological males. This 
bill claims to fight for equality, but it seems to be far from equal 
for the young, female athletes across our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stanton), who is a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act. I 
want to thank my friend and fellow recovering mayor, Congressman 
Cicilline, for his strong and unwavering leadership on this historic 
civil rights legislation.
  When it comes to equality, there is no doubt that we have come a long 
way. But following the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay 
marriage in all 50 States, the hard truth is that discrimination based 
on sexual orientation is still permitted under the law.
  LGBTQ individuals face this reality every day--that they may receive 
different, unfair treatment in employment, housing, public 
accommodations, public education, and more. We are better than that. We 
are a nation that believes all are created equal, that this truth is 
self-evident.
  I rise today in fervent support of the Equality Act because everyone 
should be treated equally no matter who they are, whom they love, or 
how they express themselves. Whether you are in Phoenix or 
Philadelphia, Mesa or Montgomery, you deserve to be seen, to be heard, 
and to be welcomed.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. McAdams).
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Cicilline if he 
will engage with me for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McADAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, I would be happy to engage my colleague from 
Utah.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm and clarify in our debate 
today that H.R. 5 does not change our Nation's longstanding First 
Amendment right to free religious exercise, speech, and association.

[[Page H3944]]

  I understand that houses of worship will not be affected in their 
religious observances by the public accommodations provisions in H.R. 
5. The current exemption in title II of the Civil Rights Act remains in 
place, so chapels, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of 
worship will continue to have legal certainty to practice their 
religion, conduct services, and affiliate with fellow members of their 
religion, as well as engage and welcome others not of their faith in 
their houses of worship for religious activity or faith practice, as 
they do now.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, that is correct. H.R. 5 adds protected classes to 
title II of the Civil Rights Act but does not revise the exception for 
private establishments not open to the public, meaning houses of 
worship can continue their practices as before, including limiting 
admission or attendance to members of their faith.
  Mr. McADAMS. To also clarify, is it your understanding nothing in 
H.R. 5 compels a clergy member to perform a religious ceremony in 
conflict with their religious beliefs?
  That is, faith groups can continue to perform marriages, blessings, 
baptisms, and other practices for their own members and consistent with 
their beliefs, consistent with their First Amendment rights, correct?
  Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. H.R. 5 does not, nor could any legislation, 
supersede the First Amendment. H.R. 5 allows the standard set by prior 
civil rights law to not interfere with worship and religious practices 
by religious organizations.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to just 
basically respond to that colloquy, because it is really interesting 
because none of us, especially myself, has said anything about houses 
of worship. We do know that is the bridge too far.
  What we are concerned about in the bill is where it says any of these 
groups, affiliations, Catholic affiliations, Jewish affiliations who 
get Federal money to do other things, they would come under this, and 
this is where the RFRA protections is something.
  So, the conversation here was nice. It provided a great cover, but it 
did not answer the question that many of us have asked in this process 
as we go forward. So I get that.
  Also, as we look at this further, this is why we have asked to see if 
we could do this in a different way and do it in a better way to define 
these terms and to protect all parties in this, and not just run 
hastily into something that could cause problems in the future.
  This colloquy was nice but did not answer the underlying question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, 
the Equality Act.
  I chair the Education and Labor Committee's Civil Rights and Human 
Services Subcommittee, and in our hearing on this important bill, we 
heard powerful testimony from Kimberly, the mother of Kai, an 8-year-
old transgender girl. Kimberly is an evangelical minister from rural 
Texas. Her family and Kai's school were not supportive, and, in fact, 
school administrators made derogatory comments about Kai.
  Kimberly testified that, regretfully, she gave into pressure and 
attempted home conversion therapy on Kai when Kai was only 4 years old. 
One day she found Kai praying for Jesus to take her home to be with Him 
forever.
  Let me say that another way: A 4-year-old was suicidal.
  Kimberly is now today a fierce advocate for her daughter's rights and 
the rights of all transgender kids to go to school in a safe and 
supportive environment. This bill will secure that right for all the 
kids like Kai around the country and will secure the right to be free 
from discrimination for millions of LGBTQ people in our country.
  I want to close with the words from Federal Judge Michael McShane, 
and his marriage equality opinion. He wrote: ``Many suggest we are 
going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To 
those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look 
less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each 
other and rise.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in a jubilant manner, because 
every American deserves to be treated equally under the law.
  I rise today in support of the basic and common principles enshrined 
in our Constitution, of liberty and justice for all, that no person 
shall be denied or be discriminated by their sexual orientation.
  I rise today in support of the Equality Act that we must proudly pass 
today led by my friend,   David Cicilline.
  For in this country, in this year, 2019, we must choose acceptance to 
grow our economy and to promote the general welfare.
  I rise because it is time to pass the Equality Act for full civil 
rights protections for all LGBTQ Americans. So many sacrificed so I 
could stand here today and speak these words. Passing this bill will 
send a powerful, bipartisan message to members of the LGBTQ community 
that they are not second-class citizens.
  Today we must vote to pass the Equality Act.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the LGBTQ Equality 
Caucus, I rise in strong support of the Equality Act, a bill championed 
by my good friend and fellow Rhode Islander, Congressman   David 
Cicilline.
  Mr. Speaker, every person deserves to be treated equally, no matter 
who they are or whom they choose to love. But the simple fact of the 
matter is that LGBT Americans face discrimination in this country every 
day, whether it is in the workplace, the foster care system or the 
housing market.
  Mr. Speaker, discrimination is never justified, and we cannot let it 
stand. As a person who lives with a disability, I know what 
discrimination feels like. I have experienced discrimination many times 
in my life. I don't like it when it happens to me, and I don't want it 
to be experienced by anyone else. It is just plain wrong.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's celebrate our diversity by promoting a culture 
of tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance, instead of one of fear and 
hate. Let's treat LGBT people with the dignity and respect that they 
deserve. Let's honor the strength and the courage of the LGBT people 
throughout history, and let's pass the Equality Act to forever secure 
the civil rights of members of the LGBT community.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congressman Cicilline, for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nadler 
for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this issue.
  Also, I have just got to acknowledge and thank Congressman   David 
Cicilline for his steady and strategic leadership in bringing this bill 
to the floor. I, too, was at the first press conference with our great 
warrior,   John Lewis, and it has been so exciting and uplifting to see 
the progress and the process in bringing this bill to the floor.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, as a cofounder of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus, along with 
our dear former colleague Congressman Barney Frank, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act. This critical bill, of course, 
would end discrimination against LGBTQ Americans once and for all.
  Now, as an African American woman, it is my moral responsibility to 
fight discrimination wherever and against whomever it raises its ugly 
head. The Equality Act will ensure that there is clear, lawful 
protection for LGBTQ Americans under the Civil Rights Act. What is 
more, this bill will ensure that no one lives in fear because of their 
gender identity or sexual orientation.

[[Page H3945]]

  Let me be clear. It is un-American that in 30 States it is still 
legal--mind you, legal--to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans in 
employment, in housing, in education--in every aspect of their lives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, this discrimination 
disproportionately affects LGBTQ people of color. This is a shame. 
Discrimination must end against everyone.
  And, yes, Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, my religion teaches me 
to love thy neighbor as thyself and to do unto others as you would have 
them do unto you. So let's pass the Equality Act today so there will 
be, truly, liberty and justice for all.
  Again, I thank Congressman   David Cicilline for this today.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and others who have 
worked on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in this legislation. I have been 
involved, in my time in Congress, with leaders from various LGBTQ and 
other organizations representing good people, as well as religious 
leaders, in an effort to find common ground to satisfy two important 
priorities.
  Yes, of course--of course--we should treat each other with fairness 
and with dignity. I believe that all people in America should live 
their lives free of any discrimination. But we also have to defend the 
first freedom, the foundational liberty, the amendment and the 
principle upon which all other liberties are based.
  People of faith, who are also good people, deserve to have the right 
to express their sincerely held religious beliefs without compulsion 
from the Federal Government.
  This bill, unfortunately--and more than unfortunately. I mean sadly, 
disappointingly, this bill makes absolutely no effort to do that. It 
makes no effort to find common ground.
  What a wasted opportunity.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to rise in support of 
H.R. 5, Mr. Cicilline's bill, the Equality Act.
  I rise today as a Christian. Mr. Speaker, this bill will extend the 
legal protections provided by the Equal Protection Clause of the United 
States Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act against 
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  And may I say that it is about time.
  This groundbreaking legislation specifically bans wrongful, hurtful 
discrimination in housing, employment, education, and other business 
and government sectors based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Individuals from the LGBTQ community are our fellow Americans. Many 
of them are Christians. They are our brothers and sisters. And it is, 
indeed, shameful that it has taken this very long to provide them with 
equal protection under the law.
  The Declaration of Independence is, again, a guide. It is instructive 
as it reminds us: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable rights.''
  In closing, none of that can happen without equal treatment under the 
law.
  ``All'' means all. ``Equal'' means equal. Let's vote for equality.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding the time, 
and I want to thank my friend, colleague, and fellow New Englander, Mr. 
Cicilline, for his courage, his perseverance, and, frankly, his 
political talents at moving this bill forward and bringing us here 
today. And I am not going to cry in my minute.
  I am proud that my home State of Maine is among the 21 States that 
has already enacted these protections. For almost 15 years, Mainers 
have stood against bigotry to provide equal access to housing, 
employment, and public establishments for our LGBTQ community.
  And, guess what. The sky did not fall when we passed protections, 
and, in fact, our State is a better, more inclusive place because of 
it. Having guaranteed civil rights for our LGBTQ neighbors means we 
value the health, safety, and dignity of every Mainer.
  But LGBTQ Mainers should have the same rights they enjoy in our State 
when they are outside of our State. This Congress must stand together 
in recognizing the humanity and the civil rights of all LGBTQ people, 
wherever they may live or travel.
  The Equality Act will ensure LGBTQ citizens have equal access to 
employment, education, housing, credit, and all public services--public 
services which their tax dollars fund, by the way.
  It is time to extend these civil rights to everyone, no matter who 
they love or how they identify. I urge my colleagues in the House to 
recognize that we must equally protect all members of our community 
under the law.
  Let's pass the Equality Act.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Shalala).
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Speaker, in Florida and many other States, LGBTQ 
Americans are still at risk of being fired, evicted, and denied 
services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  LGBTQ people confront discrimination throughout their entire lives, 
from harassment that youth face at school to the bias that older, same-
sex couples experience when they are denied housing in retirement 
communities.
  In the gallery today is Christian Bales, an openly gay and gender-
nonconforming student who was barred from delivering his valedictorian 
speech at his high school on account of his sexuality. Two nights ago, 
Christian was honored with the 2019 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment 
Award for Education.
  Today, we will take a crucial step in standing up for people like 
Christian by passing H.R. 5.
  Mr. Speaker, 2019 is the 50th anniversary of the uprising at 
Stonewall and the birth of the modern LGBTQ movement. There is no 
better way to honor the decades-long struggle for dignity and equality 
for LGBTQ people than for our elected leaders in Congress to pass this 
legislation.
  I am proud to support H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to reference 
occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans face severe 
discrimination because of whom they love.
  LGBTQ rights are civil rights. They are human rights.
  Participating and contributing equally, regardless of gender identity 
or sexual orientation, brings us closer to the self-evident truth that, 
while we are not all created the same, in a just democracy, we are all 
created equally.
  Despite State Republican hostility, City of Austin ordinances have 
long protected against the same discrimination we are combating today. 
City contractors have complied with these ordinances, whose 
requirements set the standard for our community.
  Both Austin and San Antonio enjoy perfect municipal Equality Index 
scores from the Human Rights Campaign. With this bill, we set the same 
type of standard for our entire country.
  Mr. Speaker, 1,400 businesses in the Texas Competes coalition have 
sent a clear message in favor of inclusion and against discrimination.
  We need strong Federal enforcement. That is what this bill does.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we need strong Federal enforcement since 
local governments have imperfect tools and often have been stifled by 
narrow-minded State legislatures.

[[Page H3946]]

  No American's civil rights should depend upon their ZIP Code. Don't 
stand in the doorway. Let's pass the Equality Act today.
  Among many who have been strong advocates for this act, I 
particularly honor Sam Smoot and Robert Salcido with Equality Texas; 
Julian Tovar and Sissi Yado with the Human Rights Campaign; and, of 
course, our colleagues, Congressman Cicilline and Congressman Pocan.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
Equality Act.
  Currently, it is legal to fire an individual, prevent access to 
credit, and even deny or evict someone from their home just because 
they are LGBTQ.
  The Equality Act will guarantee Federal protections by ensuring the 
LGBTQ community is provided full protections under Federal civil rights 
laws. No longer will our fellow Americans be deprived from buying a 
home, fired from their job, or denied a meal in a restaurant just 
because of who they are.
  I am as pleased to help pass this landmark bill today as I was back 
in 1996 when I voted against the discriminatory DOMA, or, so-called, 
Defense of Marriage Act.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental precept of our 
beautiful country that we have equality for all. But, sadly, in this 
Nation, we have not had equality for every person until now.
  Two-thirds of the LGBTQ community have faced discrimination, and this 
is simply wrong, and it is simply un-American.
  I thank Mr. Cicilline for bringing this important piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  How ironic that my LGBTQ constituents can get married to each other 
but still, in 29 States, can be discriminated against in their jobs, in 
public education, and even in their jury service.
  This is wrong; this is un-American; and today's bill, the Equality 
Act, rights this wrong that has been so long in coming.
  I congratulate everybody.
  I urge all of my colleagues to send a strong bipartisan statement: 
This is America; everybody has equal rights in all areas.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for his leadership, and, in particular, Representative 
Cicilline for his courage and his leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  It is long past time that we end discrimination against those in the 
LGBTQ community in our country, and that is why I am so proud to 
support the Equality Act.
  Fairness, equality--these are core American values. And yet today, in 
many States across the United States, Americans can be fired, can be 
denied a mortgage, or they might struggle in being able to obtain 
housing, all because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  That ends with the passage of the Equality Act. Every American is 
equal under the law.
  And so I would say to my friends at Out Boulder County back home, 
thank you for your activism. To my friends at One Colorado, thank you 
for your activism. To every LGBTQ American who has stood up and has 
fought for equality over a generation, I say thank you.
  And to the Members gathered here today, I implore you: Let's join 
together, and let's pass the Equality Act today and end discrimination 
once and for all.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, there are hard votes and there are easy votes. 
The hard votes involve competing values and difficult tradeoffs; the 
easy ones give us a chance to express our core American values loudly 
and clearly.
  H.R. 5 is the right vote, and I thank Representative Cicilline for 
his hard work and his heart in bringing this piece of justice to us.
  In most States, same-sex couples can be denied service in 
restaurants, fired from jobs, and evicted from homes with no legal 
recourse. In other words, they can be mistreated or discriminated 
against, and their government won't stand up for them.
  H.R. 5 will end that. This bipartisan legislation will ban 
discrimination against LGBTQ people in housing, employment, credit, 
public accommodations, and so much more. It says that we don't care who 
you love, but we do care that you are treated with decency and respect.
  This legislation takes us the next step in a long American tradition 
of expanding civil rights and protections. It affirms that, in this 
country, there is no ``us'' and ``them,'' it is just us.
  This is a historic day. I am proud to be a part of it. Let's cast 
aside old prejudices and cast a vote for justice and equality.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York). The 
gentleman from New York has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Equality Act 
because equality and fairness are core American values.
  Right now, fairness is not codified in our justice system, and it is 
long past time to end discrimination.
  When half of Americans live in a State without legal protections for 
LGBTQ individuals, that is not equality.
  When LGBTQ Americans can be fired, evicted, and discriminated against 
because of who they are, who they love, or how they identify, that is 
not justice.
  The opportunity before us is a historic one. I want to thank my 
colleagues who have led the effort to bring this bill to the floor.
  My colleagues who vote ``no'' on this will be judged.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something that we should be working on together. 
We will pass the Equality Act for the dignity of all Americans.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the House.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding.
  I thank David, my friend and my brother, for his leadership.
  Today is May 17. On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court 
issued a decision. I remember that decision. I was 17 years old. I 
thought I would be attending the segregated school. It never happened 
for me.
  Today, on this day, we have an opportunity to send a message now, to 
help end discrimination in our country and set all of our people free.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Chamber is not full of 
Members or that the gallery is not jammed with people, for this is a 
historic day.

[[Page H3947]]

  Many Members have quoted that extraordinary doctrine of civil rights 
and human rights articulated by our Founders 243 years ago: ``We hold 
these truths to be self-evident.'' I tell people that they may be self-
evident, but they are not self-executing.

  Today, we will take another step in a long journey toward a more 
perfect Union. Today, we will take a step, and, hopefully, it will be 
as it was in 1957 when we passed the Civil Rights Act that year; 
hopefully, it will be as it was in 1964 when we passed that civil 
rights bill; and, hopefully, it will be as we voted on the Disabilities 
Act in 1990.
  All of those bills were passed in a bipartisan fashion; and, yes, 
there were bipartisan votes against those bills, some from my party and 
some from my colleagues on the Republican side. My presumption is, and 
my hope is, that those who voted ``no'' on those civil rights bills 
looked back and said: I made a mistake. That was not the vote I should 
have made.
  Every Democrat will vote for this bill. Every Democrat will stand up 
and say this is another step in the quest for a better America, a more 
just America, a more accepting America. That is what we have the 
opportunity to do today.
  I hope that many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will stand 
not for party, not for policies of party or partisanship, but stand for 
principles enunciated 243 years ago but still not yet fully realized.
  That is what this day is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which I know will 
pass, but I hope, as I have said, it passes with a very strong 
bipartisan conviction and confirmation of the fact that ``we hold these 
truths to be self-evident.'' This is an opportunity for the House to 
come together and reject discrimination and exclusion.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill that Mr. Cicilline 
put forward. The Equality Act is about America. It is about who we are, 
what we are, and what we believe.
  I want to commend the LGBTQ community and the Equality Caucus for 
being at the forefront of promoting full equality, equal justice, and 
equal opportunity for LGBTQ people and their families in this country.
  The world looks to us as the strongest supporter, historically, of 
human rights and equal rights. Have we always been so? No, we have not.
  My party was the segregationist party for many years, and we said no 
to that. We walked away from that. We said that was not the party we 
were going to be.
  Of course, all of us were not members of that part of the party, but 
this day, we should all stand and say, yes, we believe that all men and 
all women and all people are created equal, by God, and endowed not by 
the Constitution, not by this body, but endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness, and the right to live as you are.
  Yes, we make judgments on what you may do, but not who you are. You 
may be Black; you may be White; you may be a woman; you may be a man; 
you may be a homosexual; you may be a lesbian; you may be a trans; you 
may be anything other than what I am; but you are entitled, from me and 
from your country, to respect and equal treatment, as we said 243 years 
ago.
  Sadly, some States still permit discrimination against LGBT people in 
those areas that have been discussed. We need to put an end to that and 
ensure that all people in this country, no matter where they live, are 
protected against hate and bigotry, exclusion and discrimination. The 
opportunities this country offers must be open to everyone in our 
country.
  When I first ran for office in 1966 for a seat in the Maryland State 
Senate, fair housing was the issue, and the proposition was you didn't 
have to sell your house to somebody whose color was different than 
yours even though they had the ability to buy it and they wanted to 
move into that neighborhood.
  This issue that we consider today is different in particular, but not 
in principle. That idea is at the very core of our American society: 
that opportunities exist for all of our people.
  Throughout our history, we have reinforced this idea with the passage 
of the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 
the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and others. 
We uphold this commitment to a fair and more just society with passage 
of this Equality Act.

                              {time}  1115

  Surely, we ought to be able to agree. Republicans, Democrats, 
liberals, conservatives, Northeast, South, and West, surely, we can 
agree that all men and all women are created equal and are deserving of 
equal treatment.
  Let's come together to make that promise of our Founders ring true.
  The Bible says, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.'' Not love your 
straight neighbor, not love your Christian neighbor, not love your 
White neighbor, not love your native-born neighbor, not love your 
neighbor of some other distinction, but, ``Love your neighbor as 
yourself.''
  That means, in my view, love your gay neighbor, love your lesbian 
neighbor, love your trans neighbor. It means love your Muslim neighbor; 
love your Jewish neighbor; love your African American, Latino, and 
Asian American neighbor; love your immigrant neighbor.
  Love your neighbor, not your hyphenated neighbor, because we are all 
created equal.
  Martin Luther King, a century after the Civil War, said to America 
that we are not living out the promise of America. He called us to 
conscience. He called us to be America. He called us to be that light 
to the rest of the world.
  So today, we say we will judge on content of character. We will be 
America. We will be the best we can be of America.
  Like we did on so many of the civil rights bills that have come 
before us, again let us vote overwhelmingly to confirm America's 
promise to its people and to the world. Vote for this critically 
important statement of America's values.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the chairman if he 
has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the gentleman the same 
thing. I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate, and we have heard a lot 
of issues today.
  One of the issues that I want to bring up today is, again, as I 
started out in my opening statement, no one on our side and no one who 
disagrees with this bill is saying anyone ought to be treated wrongly 
or badly in any way. That is not who we are. In fact, we have struggled 
with that on this floor.
  This bill, I can agree with the intent. I agree with the fact that no 
one should be.
  But my friend, the majority leader, just made a statement. He quoted 
scripture, and it was a good one. It says love your neighbor. And I 
agree with him. I have talked about it. I have preached on that many 
years now. But it also didn't say, ``Love your neighbor,'' and then, 
``I have to agree with my neighbor.''
  We can love each other and disagree. We love each other and disagree, 
and then we come into this place with this bill. That is where it gets 
not amorphous, not the intent, not what we want to do to make us feel 
better. It actually is how we then legislate this.
  This bill is just not a good attempt. It is an imperfect step toward 
making something that others want to be right but, in the end, runs a 
real risk of causing others harm at the same time.
  It is a risk that is brought on by rushing something. Even if it has 
been talked about for 5 years, the legislative part has been rushed, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I understand the concern. I understand the anxiety. But let's make it 
right. Let's at least have an open debate. Let's discuss it here.
  It is interesting to me that we had to have a colloquy on the floor 
to assuage some Members that this bill would not attack a worship 
service or who could lead a worship service or if a minister would 
actually have to do a service that would be against their personal 
faith beliefs.
  The bill does not talk about that, but it does leave an open issue of 
public accommodation and how somebody would

[[Page H3948]]

look at public accommodation in a church setting. That is an honest 
question that needs to be answered.
  It does bring up a lot of questions. What if a church or a religious 
organization accepts Federal money? What if a Catholic church accepts 
school lunch programs? What if a Jewish synagogue accepts money for 
homeland security? At that point, for the programs that they have, the 
bill says if you receive Federal money, you fall under this. Do they 
then have to violate their own faith beliefs?
  Making one group of people deny their faith while trying to give 
another one a leg up is still wrong. It is not equal.
  The questions that we have here today are honest disagreement. It is 
honest disagreement, but not in the sense of, if you take this, you 
have made a gender identity claim that is self-professing.
  As was just said a moment ago, we talk about great ideas like the 
Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Disability under the ADA can be shown 
objectively, and I agree. As the father of a daughter who has spina 
bifida and is in a wheelchair, I can show objectively what that 
actually means. I am proud of that legislation. I was not here. I wish 
I had been because I have seen it open up.
  In this bill, it says simply, ``Gender identity as I proclaim it at 
that moment.'' This is where our problems come.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I would say vote ``no'' on the bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, we have heard phantom fears about the 
allegedly harmful effects of the Equality Act on religious freedom and 
women's rights. If these fears had any basis in reality, the Equality 
Act would not have been endorsed by more than 500 civil rights, women's 
rights, religious, medical, and other national and State organizations, 
including the American Medical Association, the Central Conference of 
American Rabbis, the Episcopal Church, the Lawyers Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
the NAACP, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National 
Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Women's Law Center, 
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the Rabbinical Assembly, and 
the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society.

  It has also been endorsed by dozens of business associations, 
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to proclaim liberty and equality 
throughout the land.
  Mr. Speaker, I now commend the bill to the judgment of the House, and 
I commend the House to the judgment of history.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, 
the Equality Act.
  All Americans, regardless of background, should have the ability to 
live their lives with dignity and free from discrimination. Equal 
treatment under the law is a fundamental American principle, and this 
important legislation provides legal safeguards against discrimination 
for LGBTQ individuals.
  This is historic civil rights legislation that the House is 
considering today. Specifically, it would modify existing civil rights 
law to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ Americans, 
including protections against discrimination in employment, housing, 
access to public places, federal funding, credit, education, and jury 
service.
  As an original cosponsor of the Equality Act, I strongly support its 
final passage. I am unfortunately not able to attend today's important 
vote, but I am proud to support H.R. 5 and would have voted in favor of 
this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 puts the Hyde Amendment 
and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion 
at serious risk.
  H.R. 5 also weakens conscience protections for health care providers 
opposed to being coerced into participating in the killing of unborn 
babies.
  H.R. 5 defines ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a 
related medical condition.'' The term ``related medical condition'' 
means ``abortion.'' In the case Doe v. C.A.R.S., the Third Circuit 
stated, ``We now hold that the term ``related medical conditions'' 
includes an abortion.'' Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, interprets abortion to be 
covered as a ``related medical condition.''
  To further clarify, the bill goes on to state:

       (b) Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection 
     (a)--``(l) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a 
     related medical condition shall not receive less favorable 
     treatment than other physical conditions; . . .

  In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' 
including ending the life of an unborn baby.
  In a legal analysis released today, the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops states:

       Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for 
     abortion can be undercut in three ways.
       First, federal and state governments are themselves 
     providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be 
     subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on 
     all health care providers and, as such, would likely be 
     required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced 
     by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' 
     which is not limited to physical facilities and places.
       Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, 
     mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, 
     as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other 
     hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and 
     likely will) be argued that these newly-enacted provisions, 
     which would likely require recipients of federal funding to 
     perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication 
     previously-enacted legislation forbidding the use of those 
     very same funds for abortion.
       Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the 
     federal government to fund abortions, it could still be 
     construed to require states that receive federal funding to 
     do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from 
     the longstanding principle that the federal government not 
     require government funding of abortion even on the part of 
     state governments.
       The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to 
     undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of 
     abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill. 
     Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for 
     LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/
article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality-
 act/. But instead of denying that this problem exists, or 
     (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter 
     of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be 
     navigated super carefully.'' Id. In other words, there is a 
     problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from 
     becoming politically visible.

  I include in the Record the full analysis by the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops for the record. I am also submitting an 
analysis by National Right to Life (NRLC) that lists similar concerns 
and provides further insight into these issues.

             [From the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities]

     The Equality Act: Its Impact on Government Funding of Abortion

       The Equality Act will likely have an adverse impact on 
     existing provisions that prohibit the use of federal funds 
     for abortion.
       Below we review relevant provisions of the bill. We then 
     consider the likely consequences for current restrictions on 
     federal funding of abortion.


                      I. Text of the Equality Act

       The followings bill provisions are relevant.
       I. Public accommodations. The Equality Act (H.R. 5) forbids 
     discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual 
     orientation and gender identity,'' in places of ``public 
     accommodation.'' H.R. 5, Sec. 3(a)( 1 ). The bill defines 
     ``public accommodation'' to include ``any establishment that 
     provides . . . health care . . . services.'' Id. 
     Sec. 3(a)(4). The term ``establishment'' is not limited to 
     physical facilities and places. Id. Sec. 3(c). The term 
     ``sex'' includes ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related 
     medical condition.'' Id. Sec. 9(2). The bill also states that 
     ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall 
     not receive less favorable treatment than other physical 
     conditions.'' Id.
       2. Federally-funded programs and activities. The bill also 
     forbids discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual 
     orientation and gender identity,'' in any program or activity 
     receiving federal financial assistance. Id. Sec. 6. The term 
     ``sex'' is again defined to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, 
     or a related medical condition,'' and the listed items 
     ``shall not receive less favorable treatment than other 
     physical conditions.'' Id. Sec. 9(2).


            II. Consequences for Federal Funding of Abortion

       These changes in federal law will likely undercut existing 
     prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion.
       For years it has been an accepted predicate in federal bill 
     drafting that laws forbidding discrimination based on ``sex'' 
     must have abortion-neutral language to blunt any inference 
     that non-discrimination requires the provision or coverage of 
     abortion. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 
     Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, are 
     illustrative. Both titles forbid discrimination based on sex, 
     and both titles have abortion

[[Page H3949]]

     neutral amendments to mitigate or foreclose the claim that 
     this prohibition requires a covered entity to provide or 
     cover abortion. The fact that abortion-neutral language 
     appears in Title VII and Title IX shows that Congress knows 
     how to exclude abortion when it wants to. The failure to 
     include an abortion-neutral amendment in the Equality Act 
     therefore suggests a legislative intent to require the 
     provision of abortion; otherwise, the Act, like Titles VII 
     and IX, would have included such language. This conclusion is 
     reinforced by (a) the bill's definition of sex to include 
     ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,'' 
     (b) agency and judicial interpretations construing this 
     language, and (c) the added qualification that pregnancy and 
     ``related medical condition[s] shall not receive less 
     favorable treatment than any other physical conditions.''
       The same reasoning--and the same conclusion--applies to the 
     bill's non-discrimination provisions as applicable to 
     federally-funded programs and activities. Indeed, abortion 
     advocates themselves are currently reading the federal 
     funding provisions of the bill to permit women to 
     successfully challenge the denial of abortion.
       Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for 
     abortion can be undercut in three ways.
       First, federal and state governments are themselves 
     providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be 
     subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on 
     all health care providers and, as such, would likely be 
     required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced 
     by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' 
     which is not limited to physical facilities and places.
       Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, 
     mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, 
     as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other 
     hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and 
     likely will) be argued that these newly-enacted provisions, 
     which would likely require recipients of federal funding to 
     perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication 
     previously-enacted legislation forbidding the use of those 
     very same funds for abortion.
       Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the 
     federal government to fund abortions, it could still be 
     construed to require states that receive federal funding to 
     do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from 
     the longstanding principle that the federal government not 
     require government funding of abortion even on the part of 
     state governments.
       The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to 
     undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of 
     abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill. 
     Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for 
     LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/
article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality-
 act/. But instead of denying that this problem exists, or 
     (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter 
     of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be 
     navigated super carefully.'' Id. In other words, there is a 
     problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from 
     becoming politically visible.
       If the intent were otherwise, then proponents of the bill 
     would (and should) say so in the actual text of the bill.
                                  ____


                 National Right To Life Committee, Inc.

     Date: May 16, 2019.
     Re: Memorandum: H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and Implications on 
         the Hyde Amendment.

       H.R. 5, the Equality Act, contains language that could be 
     construed to create a right to demand abortion from health 
     care providers, and likely would place at risk the authority 
     of the government to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions.
       Historically, when Congress has addressed discrimination 
     based on sex, rules of construction have been added to 
     prevent requiring funding of abortion or nullifying 
     conscience laws. No such rule of construction is contained in 
     H.R. 5.
       Section 9 of the Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (CRA) by defining ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' It is well 
     established that abortion is regarded as a ``related medical 
     condition.'' See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1604 App. (1986) and Doe v. 
     CARS Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008).
       With abortion regarded as a pregnancy-related medical 
     condition, H.R. 5 goes on to state that ``pregnancy, 
     childbirth. or a related medical condition shall not receive 
     less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.''
       While the CRA had previously prohibited discrimination in 
     certain places of ``public accommodation,'' such as hotels, 
     restaurants, and places of entertainment, H.R. 5 amends the 
     CRA definition of ``public accommodations'' to include any 
     ``establishment that provides health care.'' The bill states 
     that the term establishment ``shall be construed to include 
     an individual whose operations affect commerce and who is a 
     provider of a good, service, or program.'' This provision 
     would apply to individual health care providers who object to 
     abortion, including those with religious objections (indeed, 
     the bill explicitly overrides the protections contained in 
     existing federal law under the Religious Freedom Restoration 
     Act, 42 2U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).
       Further, there is an additional provision that goes on to 
     state that health care providers ``shall not be construed to 
     be limited to a physical facility or place.''
       So to the extent that non-physical entities, including 
     States administering Medicaid, could be considered an 
     ``establishment that provides health care,'' funding 
     restrictions, including the Hyde Amendment, will be put in 
     jeopardy.
       In late 2018, Executive Director Mara Keisling of the 
     National Center for Transgender Equality said in an 
     interview, ``The worry is that extending sex-based 
     protections to government programs could create a backdoor 
     legal challenge to abortion restrictions like the Hyde 
     amendment, which could potentially threaten whatever 
     conservative support the bill may have.''
       From 1973, when abortion first became legal, until 1980, 
     when the Hyde amendment first took effect, the joint federal-
     state Medicaid program was paying for roughly 300,000 
     abortions annually.
  In Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), the Court upheld the Hyde 
Amendment, which restricted federal funding of abortion to cases where 
the mother's life was endangered (rape and incest exceptions were later 
added). While the Court insisted that a woman had a right to an 
abortion, the state was not required to fund the exercise of that 
right.
       Currently, 17 states fund Medicaid coverage of abortion 
     voluntarily or have laws in place requiring funding (of 
     these, 13 are due to court decisions). Twenty-seven (27) 
     states and the District of Columbia have laws that limit 
     funding to cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest; six 
     states limit abortion funding to a lesser extent.
       Even if, under H.R. 5, the federal Hyde amendment was still 
     applied to block federal funds for Medicaid abortions, States 
     currently not funding abortion, under Title VI as federal 
     funding recipients, could now face challenges to require them 
     to use their own state or local funds for Medicaid abortions. 
     Further, the CRA Sec. 20l(d) and Sec. 202 explicitly 
     supersede state laws for purposes of ``public 
     accommodations'' law.
       For example, in New Mexico, which adopted a state Equal 
     Right Amendment (ERA), the state affiliates of Planned 
     Parenthood and NARAL relied on this state ERA in a legal 
     attack on the state version of the Hyde Amendment, 
     prohibiting Medicaid funding of elective abortions. The case 
     was NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005. 
     In its 1998 ruling, every justice on the New Mexico Supreme 
     Court agreed that the state ERA required the state to fund 
     abortions performed by medical professionals, since 
     procedures sought by men (e.g., prostate surgery) are funded. 
     If enacted, H.R. 5 would open the door for widespread similar 
     litigation wherein any attempt to restrict the funding of 
     abortion would constitute discrimination.
       Enactment of H. R. 5 would open the door to legal 
     challenges that will amount to this: pregnancy-related 
     medical conditions (including abortion) could not be treated 
     less favorably than other physical conditions, so any 
     ``public accommodation'' that treats abortion differently 
     from procedures than other procedures constitute 
     discrimination.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for 
H.R. 5, the Equality Act. This landmark legislation would prohibit 
discrimination against LGBTQ individuals across key areas of life 
including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and 
services, federally funded programs, and jury service.
  We must address the fact that, in 30 states, LGBTQ people are at risk 
of being fired, refused housing or denied services simply because of 
who they are. Far too many students face bullying or worse because of 
their sexual identity, and far too many Americans--teachers, nurses, 
and state employees--face uncertainty and discrimination in the 
workplace and in their day-to-day lives. In fact, nearly two-thirds of 
LGBTQ Americans report having experienced discrimination in their 
personal lives.
  Our nation's civil rights laws protect people from discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, national origin, and, in most cases, sex, 
disability and religion. Unfortunately, federal law does not provide 
consistent nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation or 
gender identity. The need for these protections is clear: We must put 
an end to this type of discrimination immediately.
  We know from our nation's rich history in advancing the rights of 
citizens that strong federal laws are often needed to protect 
vulnerable groups of people. Because H.R. 5 explicitly prohibits 
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in 
fundamental areas, it will finally give LGBTQ people the long-overdue 
protections and rights under federal law.
  The reality is that our country is strongest when all Americans can 
be who they are, without fear of bias, discrimination or inequality in 
their workplaces or communities. I am pleased that the House is taking 
the much-needed action to ensure the core American values of equality 
and fairness are applied to members of the LGBTQ community in all 
circumstances. I urge my colleagues of the House to pass this critical 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.

[[Page H3950]]

  Pursuant to House Resolution 377, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 5 is postponed.

                          ____________________