[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 113 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3077-S3086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Equality Act

  Mr. President, I come to the floor on another issue of freedom. 
President Johnson said:

       Freedom is a right to share, share fully and equally, in 
     American society. . . . It is the right to be treated in 
     every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity 
     and promise to all others.

  It was 1996 when Senator Ted Kennedy brought the issue of ending 
discrimination in employment to the floor of the Senate. In that year, 
not so

[[Page S3078]]

long ago, virtually everything was simple majority in the Senate, as 
designed by our Founders, as written in the Constitution. The vote 
failed 49 to 50 because Senator David Pryor was at the hospital 
attending to his son, the future Senator Mark Pryor, who had cancer. It 
was a moment when the Senate nearly took a big stride forward in ending 
discrimination in employment in America against our LGBTQ community.
  Then, in November 2013, I brought to the floor the same bill, ENDA, 
ending discrimination in employment. This Senate voted in a bipartisan 
majority to end that discrimination. In fact, the vote was 2 to 1--64 
to 32. Yet that bright moment here in the Senate, where we stood for 
the vision of freedom, was not acted on by the House, and the bill did 
not make it to the President's desk.
  Now we stand here today, in 2020, and the Supreme Court on Monday in 
Bostock v. Clayton County, in a 6 to 3 decision, has proceeded to act 
to end discrimination in employment. In writing the opinion, Justice 
Gorsuch said: ``In Title VII''--referring to the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act--``Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis 
of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.''
  He wrote: ``Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire 
someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.''
  Everyone looked to the next paragraph and what would the answer be? 
Gorsuch wrote this:

       The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual 
     for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for 
     traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of 
     a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role 
     in that decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

  Well, let the bells of freedom ring here in this Chamber and across 
America. On Sunday of this last week, the day before the Supreme Court 
decision, discrimination in employment against gay, lesbian, and 
bisexual Americans was still legal in 29 States--a majority of States 
in our country--and, on Monday, that discrimination ended. It is now 
illegal in all 50 States of America, in all territories of America to 
discriminate on the basis of who you are or whom you love.
  The Court took a long, powerful stride toward the vision carved above 
the doors of the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' No longer 
can a mental health counselor named Gary Bostock be fired from his job 
at child welfare services department for playing in a gay softball 
league. No longer can a skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda be 
fired because he is gay. No longer can a police officer in southern 
Oregon named Laura Elena Calvo--with a sterling 16-year record of 
promotions, commendations for pulling people from burning cars, 
delivering babies on the side of the road, saving lives and more--be 
fired because she was a transgender woman.

  Employment discrimination ends in America. Let us savor that victory 
for freedom. Let us celebrate that victory for equality and 
opportunity. It is a long, powerful stride forward on the march for 
freedom. But a long stride forward in a march, however significant, 
does not mean that the march is over because, as wonderful as that 
victory on Monday was, as wonderful it is to have discrimination end in 
employment across the land, we still have a long way to go before LGBTQ 
Americans are treated in every part of our national life as people 
equal in dignity and promise to all others.
  The protections on Monday involve employment, but those protections 
do not extend to the titles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that address 
other issues--issues of education, issues of public accommodations--and 
they don't extend to credit, financial transactions, transactions 
covered by the CREDIT Act. They don't extend to jury service. They 
don't extend to Federal funding of programs, meaning it is legal for 
States to discriminate or cities to discriminate or counties to 
discriminate on the basis of Federal law against participation in 
Federal programs. It is unbelievable that we are still in that state, 
but that is where we are. That is where we are right now, with 
discrimination ended in employment but not ended in all of these other 
categories.
  There are a couple of possible paths forward. One is litigation that 
continues on the same premise on which the Supreme Court acted on title 
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that means litigation in each of 
these categories, case after case, slowly making its way through the 
courts, slowly making it to the Supreme Court, meaning discrimination 
continues year after year while the courts deliberate on this.
  I have heard a number of Senators say the Court acted, but Congress 
should have done it. Well, now we have the opportunity to do it. We 
have the opportunity to do it by putting the Equality Act on the floor 
of this Senate, putting it on the floor of the Senate today, having a 
debate today, and having a vote today on whether to extend the very 
premise at the heart of the Supreme Court's decision in employment to 
all of the other key areas of discrimination that is still suffered 
across this land.
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor. Let us debate it. Let us 
pass it to fulfill the vision Thomas Jefferson put forward when, in the 
words crafted for the Declaration of Independence: ``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, that 
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor of the Senate. Let us debate 
it, and let us pass it to act on the premise that Senator Ted Kennedy 
expressed: ``The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as 
justice is denied to even one among us.''
  Let us put the Equality Act on the floor of the Senate and debate it 
and pass it to fulfill the promise of freedom, the promise of freedom 
that President Johnson so well expressed in ``the right to be treated 
in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and 
promise to all others.''
  We have the power to ring the bells of freedom here in this Chamber. 
Let us not miss this opportunity.
  I am so pleased to be here with my colleagues who have fought for 
this vision of freedom and equality and opportunity--my colleague Tammy 
Baldwin from Wisconsin and my colleague Cory Booker from New Jersey, 
who have been champions in leading this fight--a fight envisioned now 
by a tremendous number of Senators endorsing and cosponsoring the 
Equality Act. Let us put that act on the floor
  I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an enormous 
step forward for our country, which happened earlier this week, on 
Monday. Once again, on a morning during Pride Month, our Nation came 
closer to realizing the promise of equality for lesbians, gays, 
bisexual, transgender, and the queer community.
  The Supreme Court has made it clear that workplace discrimination 
against LGBTQ people is wrong, and our Nation's civil rights laws 
prohibit it. While this is a joyous day and a joyous week, I want to 
take a moment to acknowledge the untold number who have suffered in 
this country for years without recourse. I want to recognize those 
brave LGBTQ people who received pink slips, were passed over for 
promotions, suffered harassment and bullying in break rooms, or never 
got that initial interview--all simply because of who they are or whom 
they loved.
  I particularly want to thank the plaintiffs who brought these cases: 
Gerald Bostock, Aimee Stephens, and Donald Zarda, as well as the 
families and friends and lawyers who supported them. Sadly, Aimee and 
Donald did not live to see this transformative moment for our country 
and our community, but we will remember them and honor the efforts that 
they and so many others have made to get us here. We will commit 
ourselves to continuing to push forward for full equality for them.
  On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed what many Federal courts, the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and so many of us have 
recognized for years--that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 
properly understood to prohibit discrimination based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity.
  As Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

       Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone 
     simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is

[[Page S3079]]

     clear. An employer who fires an individual for being 
     homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or 
     actions that it would not have questioned in members of a 
     different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role 
     in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

  This decision is far from radical, but it is transformative. It means 
that at long last in every corner of this Nation, in big cities and 
small towns, LGBTQ people are waking up in a fairer country. They now 
know that they have recourse if an employer discriminates against them 
simply because of who they are or whom they love. Employers know 
unambiguously that they have an obligation in every State to judge all 
of their employees on merit, not sexual orientation or gender identity.
  While we have taken another big step forward--and it is a big step--
in the march toward full equality for LGBTQ Americans, we are not there 
yet. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people face 
discrimination in many more aspects of their lives than the workplace. 
Our country needs to send the message that treating people unfairly 
because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and 
that it will not be tolerated, period, whether that is while buying a 
house, going out to dinner, shopping in a store, serving on a jury, or 
seeking help from a government program.
  While the Court told us on Monday that discrimination based on sexual 
orientation or gender identity is necessarily sex discrimination, those 
cases were about employment. While I would expect that any 
administration would now take a long, hard look at its wrong-headed 
efforts--based on the legal arguments that the Supreme Court has just 
rejected--to write LGBTQ people out of sex discrimination protections 
in education, healthcare, and other areas, I do not have confidence 
that this administration is going to do so.
  There are areas of Federal civil rights law, such as those governing 
public accommodations and Federal financial assistance, which don't 
even yet prohibit discrimination based on sex. That is why the Senate 
must take up and pass the Equality Act. Senators Merkley, Collins, 
Booker, and I introduced this bipartisan measure to ensure that LGBTQ 
people have the same nondiscrimination protections as other Americans 
by adding sexual orientation and gender identity alongside all 
protected characteristics, such as race and religion, to existing 
Federal laws. It would ban discrimination in a host of areas, including 
housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit and 
Federal funding, as well as employment.
  The bill would also strengthen our civil rights laws by adding 
protections against sex discrimination to the Federal laws where they 
have not been included previously, including those addressing public 
accommodations and Federal funding.
  More than a year ago, a bipartisan majority of the House of 
Representatives passed the Equality Act. Unfortunately, like so many 
other pieces of legislation that would improve the lives of the 
American people, it has been ignored by the Senate majority leader and 
placed in his legislative graveyard.
  The Equality Act cannot be ignored any longer by the Senate, and 
LGBTQ people should not have to wait any longer to enjoy the full 
protections of our Nation's civil rights laws.
  I urge the Senate to build on the Supreme Court's decision and act 
today to bring our Nation closer to the promise of equality by passing 
the Equality Act.
  Finally, I want to close by acknowledging the extraordinary moment in 
which our Nation finds itself today. Thousands upon thousands are 
demanding the country confront racial injustices and systemic racism. 
They rightfully call for change, and they righteously call for change, 
and it is my hope that Congress will take an important step in righting 
some of those wrongs by passing the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 
without delay.
  We must do so much more, and today I am keenly aware of the Black and 
Brown LGBTQ people who experience discrimination and injustice in this 
country--not just because of sexual orientation or gender identity but 
also because of race or ethnicity.
  As we approach another anniversary of the Stonewall riots that 
sparked the modern LGBTQ movement for equality, I am also mindful of 
the leadership of Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, transgender 
women of color, in that historic moment. I hope the brave, courageous 
legacy of these leaders and the urgent needs of Black and Brown LGBTQ 
people would inspire us to take another step to strengthen the civil 
rights for all Americans and pass the Equality Act.
  I now yield to my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my 
wonderful colleagues for their leadership, Senator Merkley and Senator 
Baldwin, for not just being on the floor today and speaking out but 
speaking out every day for introducing the Equality Act, of which I am 
very proud to be a cosponsor, and for continually standing up for the 
rights of all Americans.
  In 2013, a Michigan funeral director wrote a letter. It said:

       What I must tell you is very difficult for me and is taking 
     all the courage I can muster. I felt imprisoned in a body 
     that does not match my mind, and this has caused me great 
     despair and loneliness.

  She told her coworkers, from now on, she was choosing to live her 
truth; from now on, she would be living and working as a woman. 
Unfortunately, she paid dearly for her courage, and 2 weeks later she 
was fired.
  That woman was Aimee Stephens of Redford, MI
  This week, Aimee's courage literally changed history--literally 
changed history. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 
what happened to Aimee was illegal. It was illegal. Period. Employers 
cannot fire or otherwise discriminate against employees simply because 
of who they are or whom they love. Period.
  Sadly, Aimee didn't get to celebrate the landmark victory, and we all 
wish she were here right now to be able to join and lead the 
celebration. She died last month at age 59. She will go down in history 
as someone who took a stand for equality, for basic fairness, and made 
our Nation a better place. So many people have joined her in this 
fight, getting to this victory.
  It is now time to further honor her courage and the courage of so 
many others by passing the Equality Act, and we can do it today. That 
is the good news. Right now, on the floor today, we can do that 
together. What a great way to end this week; this month of June, this 
Pride Month. What a great way this would be.
  The Equality Act is pretty simple. It protects people against 
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all 
aspects of their lives. Unfortunately, this legislation, as my 
colleagues have said, which has already passed the House, has been 
sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk gathering dust for nearly 400 days--
400 days since the House of Representatives took action. It is time to 
shake off that dust and get this thing done for Aimee and for everyone 
who has fought alongside her and continues to fight today to make our 
Nation a more equitable place.
  Now, our Republican colleagues, however, are more interested in 
pushing through extremist judges who have no interest in LGBTQ 
equality.
  Later today and next week, we will be voting on two judicial 
nominations--Justin Walker and Cory Wilson. It is, frankly, insulting 
that these two nominations are even coming to the floor--insulting to 
the American people that they are coming to the floor.
  Justin Walker's nomination is opposed by 275 outside groups, 
including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the 
National Center for Transgender Equality.
  As for Cory Wilson, he supports H.B. 1523, the so-called Protecting 
Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, and that 
would give broad permission for people and businesses to deny services 
to people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Both of these nominees--both of them would overturn the Affordable 
Care Act, which has made lifesaving differences for so many members of 
the LGBTQ community and Americans all across our country.
  Justin Walker wants the courts to throw out the entire Affordable 
Care

[[Page S3080]]

Act, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. He 
called the Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA ``indefensible and 
catastrophic.''
  Millions of people get their healthcare through the Affordable Care 
Act. Everyone who has an insurance policy is able to do that and get 
covered, even if they have a preexisting condition, because of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Cory Wilson used even more colorful language. He called the law 
``illegitimate and perverse.'' Providing people healthcare he thinks is 
perverse, and this is somebody the Republicans are going to put on the 
court.
  He even opposed expanding Medicaid coverage in Mississippi, a change 
that would literally save lives in the middle of a pandemic.
  We know what we need to do because Aimee showed us. We need to pass 
the Equality Act now--today. We can do that today. Wouldn't that be 
wonderful, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this today?
  We need to vote no on two judicial nominees who are far out of step 
with the basic American ideals of equality and fairness.
  Aimee Stevens was courageous. Four hundred days is way too long for 
millions of Americans to wait for the U.S. Senate to step up and do its 
job. It is time for all of us to truly stand up for equality for the 
LGBTQ community and set the foundation that we believe in equality for 
all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before she leaves, another good idea from 
Senator Stabenow--pass the Equality Act today. Too logical, I guess, 
but it is another good idea, and I thank my colleague for it.
  I also want to commend my partner from Oregon, Senator Merkley, who 
has been leading this fight for years now. Wisconsin often partners 
with Oregon, going all the way back to our shared ownership of Wayne 
Morris. I just want to thank my colleagues for the great work they have 
been doing and just take a couple of minutes to talk about my pride in 
standing with them to fight for the passage of the Equality Act.
  We have come together during the middle of Pride Month. In 2020, with 
the pandemic continuing to spread, Pride Month looks a little different 
than it has in the past--no parades, smaller celebrations--but it still 
has been a historic month when it comes to LGBTQ rights, perhaps more 
so than any other since marriage equality became the law of the land in 
June 2015.
  A few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 protects LGBTQ Americans against discrimination in the workplace. 
The majority said an employer who fires an individual merely for being 
gay or transgender defies the law.
  Now, this ruling was a little bit of a surprise. I mean, it was 
absolutely correct in that it recognized that the law offered equal 
protection for LGBTQ Americans--a fact that should never have been in 
doubt.
  I also want to say on the floor today we are going to have to 
continue to be on guard that this administration's judges will use the 
approach underpinning this ruling as cover to strip equal protection 
from other people in future rulings.
  When you get the wrong approach resulting in the correct ruling, we 
have to be vigilant--vigilant, vigilant, and more vigilant in fighting 
for the correct results again and again and again.
  The ruling came just a few days after the Trump administration tried 
to take America in exactly a different direction, announcing that it 
was green-lighting healthcare discrimination against transgender 
Americans--an ugly, shameful action to take. How cruel that the 
administration actually said: We are going to announce this during 
Pride Month. We are actually going to use Pride Month to be cruel.
  It was a reminder to a lot of people that the fight for LGBTQ rights 
didn't end with the victory on marriage equality. For every landmark 
ruling that moves the cause forward, there is somebody like Donald 
Trump, who is always looking to see if they can drag the Nation back to 
the days when discrimination was business as usual.
  Until Monday's ruling, employers in more than half the States were 
allowed to fire employees for their sexual orientation or their gender 
identity. That was in more than half the States, but that injustice is 
now a thing of the past.
  We can't count on this week's Supreme Court ruling against workplace 
discrimination to bring on the end of discrimination in other parts of 
life in our country. The Senate can't wait for any other court cases to 
move forward before we take real action on this floor. That is why my 
colleagues and I are here today. We want to call for the immediate 
passage of the Equality Act. If discrimination against LGBTQ Americans 
is illegal in the workplace, then it is illegal in housing; it is 
illegal in education; it is illegal in public services and more. That 
is what the Equality Act is all about. It is about recognizing the 
dignity and the humanity of LGBTQ Americans, and, most importantly, 
enshrining it into the law. It is the next step that will move the 
cause forward, and there is bipartisan legislation that reflects the 
will of an overwhelming majority of the American people. The Senate 
ought to come together and pass it now.
  Justice Kennedy wrote--and I will close with this because it sums up 
what is in my heart today, ``The Constitution promises liberty to all 
within its reach.''
  There is much to be done on delivering on that promise outlined by 
Justice Kennedy. So we are going to be back here on the floor of the 
Senate, fighting for the passage of the Equality Act. Senator Stabenow 
was spot on. We ought to have done it today, and we are just going to 
be back here again and again and again in the weeks and months ahead 
until we have that promise of equality in every corner of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues from Oregon, 
Senator Wyden, for his remarks; Senator Merkley, for his leadership on 
the bill; and Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, for her extraordinary 
leadership and service to our country.
  It is a great privilege to be here today. My friend Cory Booker from 
New Jersey has been fighting for these issues for his whole career. Who 
knows, as I know, that anyone who studied the history of our democracy 
knows it has always been hard to make progress. This struggle has 
always been a battle of our highest ideals and our worst instincts as a 
country.
  It has been true since our founding, when the same people who wrote 
that ``all men are created equal'' also perpetuated human slavery and 
denied equality to so many others. In fact, I don't think it is too 
much to say that our history is a story of our struggle with that 
contradiction between the promise of equality and the reality of 
inequality in America--between our highest ideals and our worst 
instincts. We struggle with that today.
  Since he took office, over and over, President Trump has called on 
our worst instincts in almost everything he has done, including his 
attacks on access to healthcare, housing, and education for LGBTQ 
Americans.
  Just last week, he went out of his way to strip transgender Americans 
of their access to healthcare, but just as President Trump was 
depriving hard-won rights, dragging us backward again, in Colorado, on 
the very same day, our State legislature passed a law to make it harder 
to wage violence against LGBTQ people in my State.
  And listen to this: The vote was 63 to 1 in the Colorado House. It 
was 35 to 0 in the Colorado Senate.
  Notwithstanding President Trump's anti-civil rights, anti-civil 
liberties agenda, in Colorado--a Western State, a purple State--
Republican and Democratic elected officials, in their legislative 
season, are fighting for our highest ideals and rejecting our worst 
instincts.
  In fact, my State passed our version of the Equality Act over a 
decade ago. It is why we banned conversion therapy and passed Jude's 
Law, which makes it is easier for transgender Americans to change their 
name and government documents. It is how we have elected our State's 
first openly gay Governor, Jared Polis, and our first transgender State 
legislator, Brianna Titone. It is why we were one of the first States 
in

[[Page S3081]]

America, I say to my college from New Jersey, to pass real 
accountability for police brutality with a bill led by Leslie Herod--
Colorado's first LGBTQ State legislator of color. This week, we passed 
that bill 52 to 13 in the House and 32 to 2 in the Senate. It contains 
many of the same reforms that Senator Booker and Senator Harris are 
leading on here.

  So I am here to tell you that there are more and more in Colorado and 
in the country who understand what equality has come to mean in America 
and how to resolve some of these contradictions in the year 2020, and, 
this week, even the U.S. Supreme Court seems to understand it.
  Just in the last week, a Republican-appointed Justice rejected Donald 
Trump's arguments and wrote for a majority of the Court, affirming 
equality for LGBTQ Americans. Then, this morning, the Court overturned 
President Trump's malicious attack on Dreamers, reaffirming the rule of 
law and, for the moment, protecting three-quarters of a million people 
who know no other country but the United States of America.
  Now it is time for the Senate to do our work, finally, and pass the 
Equality Act. The House passed the Equality Act 13 months ago, and we 
have not acted in our typical fashion. That is another 13 months when 
LGBTQ Americans could get married on a Sunday and be fired on Monday, 
another 13 months when our neighbors could be denied housing, denied 
healthcare or be turned out of a store because of who they are.
  Americans understand that no good comes from hoarding freedoms and 
equality. When we take the opposite view, we act against our 
traditions. As a nation, we will never flourish if we choose to depend 
on a permanent underclass that is deprived of some or all of the rights 
and freedoms others enjoy. Free people do not remain free by denying 
freedom to others. We should vote on the Equality Act and pass it 
today.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today, in the 
middle of Pride Month, to celebrate the Supreme Court's landmark 
decision this week in Bostock v. Clayton County, protecting LGBTQ 
rights and protecting people from discrimination in the workplace, and 
to urge all of our colleagues to secure and extend those protections by 
passing the Equality Act.
  Something else big happened in the Supreme Court, and that was today, 
with the Supreme Court's decision on DACA, on Dreamers--allowing them 
to stay in this country and asking the administration to open up the 
application process for citizenship. That is relevant because it is 
about civil rights, but it is also relevant because the Supreme Court--
this conservative Court--has had to step in because this body has not 
been doing what it should have been: passing the Equality Act and 
passing comprehensive immigration reform. So let us remember that as we 
celebrate the decision in the Bostock case and as we move toward 
equality.
  I thank Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and Booker for their leadership on 
this important bill and for bringing us together today.
  Over the last few decades, we have made progress in the fight for 
equality. We have stood up for what is right, and we have worked hard 
to make this a country in which people can safely, proudly, and legally 
love whom they love. It was not long ago when a person could be 
prosecuted for being gay and when don't ask, don't tell was the law of 
the land--when I came to the U.S. Senate--and when States were 
permitted to deny LGBTQ couples the right to get married under the 
Defense of Marriage Act.
  This week, our country took an important step forward with the 
Supreme Court's decision that recognizes that the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits employers from firing employees because of sex, 
protects LGBTQ people in the workplace.
  We can celebrate today that justice was delivered for Aimee Stephens, 
who was fired when she informed her employer that she was transgender, 
and for Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, who were fired when their 
employers learned they were gay.
  But, of course, this is more than about three people. As Mr. Bostock 
said, ``This fight became about so much more than me.'' Their courage 
to stand up in the face of injustice will forever change this country 
for millions of LGBTQ people and their families, and it makes our 
country a more just nation.
  Although the Court's decision is a landmark victory, we still have 
miles to go because it is not right when the Commander in Chief tells 
brave transgender Americans who want to serve and protect our country 
in our military that they are not welcome; it is not right when this 
administration is trying to take away the hard-won rights of LGBTQ 
people in healthcare and education; and it is not right that you can 
drive across the United States on a cross-country trip and find that 
the laws and protections could be different at every rest stop.
  That is why I was proud to cosponsor, on the day it was introduced, 
the bipartisan Equality Act with my colleagues who are here today, and 
it is why I am calling on our colleagues across the aisle to pass this 
bill.
  This bill, which already passed the House by a vote of 236 to 173, 
will go a long way in protecting LGBTQ Americans from discrimination. 
The Equality Act would build on the Supreme Court's decision and make 
nondiscrimination protections consistent and explicit. It would amend 
laws like the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act, and Federal employment laws to ensure that all 
Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, 
have equal access to housing, education, and federally funded programs.
  We should not wait any longer to extend these protections, for nearly 
two-thirds of LGBTQ Americans report experiencing discrimination in 
their personal lives. These problems are compounded by race and income, 
especially for trans women of color. Yet it has been over 1 year since 
this bill passed the House.
  In 2000, when I was the county attorney in our largest county in 
Minnesota, I was invited to the White House to introduce President Bill 
Clinton at an event to urge the passage of hate crimes legislation. We 
had had an African-American young man who had been shot by a guy who 
had said that he had wanted to go out and kill someone on Martin Luther 
King Day. That happened. We had had an employee who had gotten beaten 
with a board by the foreman at his workplace for his simply speaking 
Spanish. I had taken on a number of these crimes, so I had been invited 
by the President to urge Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard hate 
crimes legislation, which covered a wide range of hate crimes.
  During that event at the White House--my first time ever there--I got 
to meet the investigators in the Matthew Shepard case. They were these 
two burly cops from Wyoming, and they talked about the fact that until 
that investigation--I think Senator Baldwin is nodding her head and has 
probably met them as well--they really hadn't thought about what 
Matthew Shepard's life was like or the lives of other LGBTQ people. 
Then, as they started to investigate what had happened--and we all 
remember how he was left hanging on a fence post, and the first people 
who saw him thought he was a scarecrow--these investigators, these 
police officers, got to know the family and the case. They got to know 
his mom, and they got to know his friends. During the course of their 
investigation, as they began to understand what life was like for 
Matthew Shepard, their own lives were changed.
  I think this is happening right now around this country after the 
murder of George Floyd in my State, and I know it has been happening 
when it comes to our LGBTQ community. That is why, on that day way 
back, we were in the White House to introduce that bill. Nearly 10 
years after that event at the White House, during my first year as a 
U.S. Senator, I got to be one of the deciding votes to finally pass 
that hate crimes bill.
  So I say to my colleagues who are fighting for justice, who are 
fighting for justice in policing, who are fighting for justice in our 
LGBTQ community, who are fighting for justice for our immigrants, the 
change will happen, but we can't wait 10 years for this change to 
happen. The people of this country

[[Page S3082]]

are demanding that it happen now. We need to come together and finally 
pass the Equality Act and do all of these other good things that are 
right here, that are right on our desks. We should do them 
immediately--not next year--and not wait. Now
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are here and for 
all of the work that has been done around the Equality Act, not just 
here in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives.
  I want to make this very clear. You look at history, and you see that 
the fundamental equality of all Americans has been denied for so many 
generations--for women who fought for equality under the law and the 
right to vote; for African Americans, who fought for equality under the 
law. We have seen from our founding they have struggled to make real 
the promise of this Nation--a promise of an ideal that we are all equal 
under the law.
  Our Founders--these imperfect geniuses--enshrined these ideals. This 
Nation was not founded in perfection but in aspiration. The very 
Founders themselves referred to Native Americans as savages. They 
talked about women as not being equal citizens. They denied African 
Americans full and equal citizenship. Yet these aspirational documents 
were so profound that every generation of Americans has called to our 
founding ideals to overcome the inequality that has been inherent in 
our country.
  Susan B. Anthony called to the founding documents for her equality 
and the equality of women. Martin Luther King, on The Mall, called to 
that check--to that promissory note--that it was time. Yet here we are, 
in the year 2020, still calling for the full equality of all American 
citizens when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
Americans.
  I think back to my own family--to my grandparents and great-
grandmother--who talked about the excuses that were used to deny them 
equality. There were religious excuses. I am a big believer in 
religious freedom, but people sought to deny Blacks and Whites from 
marrying. In fact, when Loving v. Virginia passed, the majority of 
Americans were still against interracial marriage in this country. 
Somehow, people were using religion as a shield from establishing the 
fundamental ideals of this country. We overcame that.
  These types of reasons were given for the dehumanizing treatment of 
Native Americans, and these kinds of excuses were used to justify the 
segregation of African Americans. In every generation, we fought and we 
struggled and we came together--multiracial, multiethnic, diverse 
coalitions--to overcome this.
  This week, I was so grateful to see the decision of the Supreme 
Court, but I was of mixed feelings about it. Why would it take an 
action of the Supreme Court to justify what already is--equal humanity? 
equal dignity? Why would it take so long for a country to say: ``In 
this Nation, a majority of States cannot discriminate against you. You 
cannot be fired just because of who you are''?
  I hear the echoes of my own ancestry growing up in a country in which 
children were told and saw clearly before them laws enshrined that were 
bigoted and biased; that they were not equal citizens, and even though, 
when we stand up in our grade schools, we have to say those words 
``liberty and justice for all,'' what does it mean to a child who is 
denied those things?
  I see us in a country now in which we are raising children who are in 
danger. LGBTQ kids are almost five times as likely as their straight 
peers to attempt suicide. LGBTQ kids--about 30 percent--admit to 
missing school because of being in fear for their safety. This is in 
America in 2020. Black trans women are dying at unacceptable, 
unconscionable rates. I say dying. They are being murdered. There have 
been 15 transgender or gender nonconforming people who have been 
murdered, and last week alone, two transgender women were killed--
Dominique Fells and Riah Milton.
  We have work to do in this country to establish the fundamental 
ideals that have been said from the founding of this country that we 
will all be equal under the law, the fundamental ideals from the 
founding of this country that we are a nation of liberty and justice 
for all.
  Here we are at the crossroads of history, forcing our fellow 
Americans to come and ask for what is fundamentally theirs already--
equal dignity, equal rights. The Equality Act is too late already. It 
is too late to do what was preordained by the very founding of this 
Nation. We are too late already to save the lives of children who have 
been forced to live in a nation that doesn't recognize their equal 
dignity. We are too late already to protect the shame of people who 
have been fired just because they are gay, who have been denied 
accommodation just because they are gay--the humiliation of which, I 
dare say, so many in this body know from their families' stories.
  So we come here to the floor to ask for what is overdue, to ask for 
us to establish in law what is true in the spirit of this Nation, and 
to echo the words of our ancestors, great suffragettes, great civil 
rights leaders, great Native Americans, who have all come to this 
Capitol to say: This is who we are--equal citizens under the law.
  To my colleagues who are with me today, I tell you that, no matter 
what happens with this unanimous consent, justice will come to this 
country. No matter who stands against this Equality Act, they stand on 
the wrong side of history, on the arc of the moral universe, but it 
bends toward justice. Well, it never bends automatically. We need some 
arc benders. For too many people in this country, justice delayed is 
justice denied. So we will not give up. We will not yield. We will not 
equivocate. We will not retreat. This will become the law of the land.
  We have made some steps in the right direction of justice, but we are 
still in the foothills. We have a mountain to climb, but I know we will 
make it to the mountaintop. I know that this Nation will fulfill its 
promise to all of its people and, indeed, become the promised land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the powerful words, the 
passionate delivery of stories on the defense of freedom, the defense 
of equality, the advance of justice, and the presentations of my 
colleagues from Wisconsin and Michigan, my partner from Oregon, my 
friend from Colorado, the Senator from Minnesota, and Senator Booker 
from New Jersey. Their words speak to the heart of what our Nation is 
about--equality, opportunity, justice, and freedom.
  I will, therefore, ask that we bring this bill about equality to the 
floor, that we go forward in the great tradition of this Chamber and 
this Senate to debate issues that involve the opportunity for every 
individual to thrive in our Nation. Time and again, we have held those 
debates before. We held them in 2013 on the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act.
  Now, I understand some colleagues have come to the floor to object to 
this Senate's entertaining such an important debate. They have come to 
the floor to obstruct the opportunity of this Chamber to engage in a 
dialogue on this important issue--so violent to the life of millions of 
Americans. I ask them to reconsider.
  Have the courage to debate this issue on the floor--to bring, in the 
great tradition of this country, an issue violent to freedom to be 
considered here.
  One colleague responded to the Supreme Court's decision on employment 
nondiscrimination earlier this week by saying: This judicial rewriting 
of our law short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of 
the electorate. Well, let no Member of the Senate today short circuit 
the legislative process by objecting to this important debate on the 
floor of the Senate.

  On behalf of equality and opportunity and freedom, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 5 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. Further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am reserving the right to object.

[[Page S3083]]

  There is a single thread that runs through the Supreme Court's 
decision in the Bostock case earlier this week and all the way through 
the legislation now under discussion on the Senate floor, and that 
principle deals with nondiscrimination. It is a principle that, as 
Americans, we believe that people shouldn't be treated differently on 
the basis of factors, characteristics, and traits that have nothing to 
do with their job. I think most Americans can agree with that, and I 
think most Americans can agree that an individual shouldn't face such 
discrimination in the workplace based on his or her sexual orientation.
  The important thing that we have to remember is that much of where 
the law is found and much of what we can perceive from a position of 
justice and equality and fairness relates to where the exceptions are 
found. I have got two principal concerns with this legislation that are 
also shared by the Bostock ruling. The first relates to exceptions 
related to religious employers.
  Neither the Bostock decision nor the Equality Act takes the care to 
ensure that religious employers will be treated fairly under this 
approach. We need to be mindful of the need of a religious employer to 
maintain its doctrine and its teachings, not only in the hiring of its 
ministers but also in the hiring of other people who worked toward 
moving forward that religious institution's teachings in the way they 
live their lives, in their beliefs, and in their willingness to teach 
those things to others. This legislation doesn't do that. I think any 
legislation that we move forward on this needs to have it.
  Secondly, neither this legislation nor the Bostock decision takes 
into account some significant distinctions between sexual orientation 
on the one hand and gender identity on the other.
  In the case of gender identity, the law needs to take into account 
certain questions regarding what impact the law might have on girls and 
women's restrooms and locker rooms, girls and women's athletics, and 
single-sex safe places for people who are, for example, the victims of 
domestic or sexual abuse. This law, like the Bostock decision, doesn't 
operate with a lot of precision and sort of takes a meat cleaver to the 
issue without taking into account exceptions for religious entities and 
distinctions between sexual orientation and gender identity. On that 
basis, I have concerns.
  Knowing that I have some colleagues who want to speak to this issue, 
I decline to object as of this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
just like to observe that it was just over 20 years ago that this 
Chamber and the analog Chamber across the way in the House of 
Representatives passed almost unanimously a statute called the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was sponsored in the House by 
then-Representative Schumer, and it was sponsored in this Chamber by 
Senator Edward Kennedy, and signed by President Bill Clinton into law, 
who, upon its signing, referred to religious liberty as our first 
freedom--those are his words--and he later pointed to the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act as one of his proudest accomplishments as 
President of the United States. Its cosponsors in this body included 
Senators Feinstein and Murray and Leahy. It was bipartisan is my point, 
to put it mildly.
  Yet, today, this short time on the legislation that is offered on 
this floor now, that has not gone through the normal process of 
committee referral, debate on the floor but would be passed now, 
without any further discussion, guts key provisions of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. This is coming on the heels of a Supreme Court 
decision just 2 days ago that rewrites entire statutes in American law 
and in its 33 pages has nearly nothing to say about religious liberty 
or religious believers in this country. In fact, the only thing that 
the opinion does say of any consequence is this:

       How [the courts'] . . . doctrines protecting religious 
     liberty interact with Title VII [as rewritten by the court] 
     are questions for future cases.

  Now, I respect, very much, my colleagues across the aisle and their 
passion for this issue and their sincerity in this cause. I would only 
ask that the rights of well-meaning, sincere religious believers not be 
steamrolled and overlooked and shifted to the side as part of this 
process. We should be able to come together and stand together in the 
effort to see all people be given their constitutional rights and have 
their constitutional rights protected.
  The effects of this bill is forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, 
forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions against their will, and 
forcing faith-based hospitals and clinics to perform abortions. H.R. 5, 
this bill here, would supersede existing restrictions on abortion, 
including funding, including health and safety standards, and other 
regulations that the States have passed.
  It would force faith-based adoption agencies, some of which have been 
helping birth mothers find a safe and loving and permanent home for 
more than 100 years--it would force them out of business. It would 
coerce those who don't want to speak or who hold different beliefs into 
adopting this set of practices and principles and beliefs at work--
these doctors, these nurses, and these faith-based agencies.
  I submit to you that this is not the way to find consensus in 
America. This shunting aside of the constitutional rights of sincere, 
well-meaning people of faith is not the way to proceed. This gutting of 
the Religious Freedom Act--and I say that because H.R. 5 explicitly 
carves out of the Religious Freedom Act, it explicitly carves out of 
its safety provisions all of those requirements I just mentioned. It 
rolls back the liberties afforded to people of faith--all faiths, by 
the way. One of the beauties of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
is that it covers people of all faiths, any faith, and this bill would 
roll those protections back. It would do it without the chance for 
debate. It would do it outside of our normal procedures.
  For those reasons, I express these reservations. Again, I thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this issue, 
their passion for this cause, and their sincerity in what they believe. 
I hope that we might find a better way to go forward together, but I do 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I am reserving the right to object. No 
person should be discriminated against in America. No one. It is a 
basic constitutional principle. We are all equal under the law, all of 
us. We have different ideas about music and food. We have different 
ideas about sexuality. We have different ideas about occupations. We 
have different skin colors. We are the tapestry that we talk about, and 
we are working to make a more perfect Union. I absolutely believe that 
no person should be discriminated against in America.
  The Equality Act doesn't just make everything equal, though. It has a 
great title. Who can oppose equality? No one. It is a basic principle 
of American values. We don't oppose equality, but we do oppose when, 
through legislation, you take the rights of one and dismiss the rights 
of others and say: Your rights don't count, only this group counts, and 
only this person counts. We, in America, have tried to work together, 
in all of our differences, for over two centuries, to learn better how 
to hear the rights of another one, to accommodate, and to find those 
spots where the rights of two individuals collide and to work it out 
among each other. The Equality Act does not do that. I wish it did. It 
changes things dramatically.
  Let me just give you a few examples. It reaches into high school 
sports and says for male and female sports, that individuals' sexual 
orientation and gender identity can move between those. There is no 
standard for testosterone. There is no standard for moving through 
transition surgery. There is no standard at all set on it. It opens it 
up for any male--biological male--to step into female sports on the 
high school level or in the college level or in the pro-athlete level 
and be able to move into that sport. That grossly disadvantages girls 
in sports, but their rights are denied.
  We have already seen this in several States where State record 
holders for track, for instance--someone who was a biological male 
competing in women's athletics denying the other girls who were 
competing in that from opportunities for scholarships to college,

[[Page S3084]]

to be able to move on to other athletics. Their rights were ignored 
because these rights were prioritized.
  In adoptions, we need more adoption areas. We need more foster care 
in America, not less. The Equality Act says that if you are a faith-
based adoption agency that only places children in a home where there 
is a mom and dad there, then you either have to change your faith or 
close. You have no other option. The Equality Act says to that 
institution: I would rather have fewer adoption agencies in America 
than have you open.
  That is not protecting the rights of all Americans. That is not 
learning how to accommodate together. Why can't we have adoption 
agencies that do adoptions in LGBT homes and some that do adoptions 
that don't? Why can't we have both? Why can't we accommodate both? The 
Equality Act does not allow that
  The Equality Act treats every job in America exactly the same and 
says that an individual who is qualified for that job should be able to 
take that job, regardless of any issue. Let me give you a first example 
of that.
  If you have an individual going through TSA--and what a lovely 
experience that is for all of us--this Equality Act would say: When 
your alarm goes off and you have to get the full-body pat-down, a 
transgender individual could be your TSA person giving you the full-
body pat-down. They would be required to not prohibit that.
  Now, for some people, they would be like: I don't care. It is a pat-
down. I don't care. For other people, it would be like--there is a 
reason why TSA has done pat-downs of a man for a man and a woman for a 
woman because there are many people uncomfortable with someone of an 
opposite gender who does that to them. They just are. Maybe you call 
them prudes, but we have honored their rights. The Equality Act does 
not. It ignores their rights and says that you no longer have the right 
to disagree with this, and you have to just accept it.
  It also dramatically changes hiring in America in a way that is 
unexplored. There is a reason we send bills through committee, not just 
bring them to the floor and demand that they pass on the same day they 
land on the floor without going through committee. There is a reason we 
do that--because this bill changes the way hiring is done in America in 
a way that has not been tested for everyone.
  This adds a new feature to title VII, where it says, in title VII, 
that you can't discriminate based on race, on sex--that has now been 
redefined, obviously, by the courts--on religion, all these things. It 
clarifies. You can't discriminate based on that. But it adds a new 
phrase on this. ``Perception or belief'' is the new phrase.
  This is how that would be applied in courts. If I go to an interview 
in a job and I am not hired, I can sue that employer because I 
perceived they were thinking I was gay and so they didn't hire me, or--
because it applies to all of it--I could, actually, because this does 
expand this significantly, if I go in to get a job and I am not hired, 
I could sue them for not hiring me because I perceived that it was 
because I was a Christian and they didn't hire me. I perceived that it 
was because I was White that they didn't hire me. I don't have to prove 
anything. It is based simply on my perception or belief. That is an 
untested expansion.
  Now, this term ``perception or belief'' is lifted right out of our 
hate crime statutes, but hate crime statutes, on their face, are all 
about the motive for it, and you are trying to read into a crime the 
motive for that crime. Now we are trying to literally read someone 
else's mind in a hiring situation and to say that I perceived it, so if 
you don't hire me, I can sue you.
  Why are we doing this? That opens up litigation all over the country 
on every area, not just on this issue of LGBT rights--on every 
situation and every hiring because it is very expansive. We probably 
should slow down and look at that before we open that floodgate in 
America, but this does not.
  Today is about demanding that it passes right away. Interestingly 
enough, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act is wiped away in this and ignored. Interestingly 
enough, the Supreme Court stated just this week that on this issue, 
Congress should apply this. Let me read what Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, 
Sotomayor, and Kagan wrote this week, along with Roberts and Gorsuch. 
They said this:

       Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title 
     VII's requirements in cases like ours may require some 
     employers to violate their religious convictions. We are also 
     deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free 
     exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that 
     guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.

  They go on to speak of we will have a case dealing with the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. The Equality Act, instead, says: No, never 
mind, Supreme Court. I know that you are concerned about religious 
freedoms--Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Roberts--but 
never mind. Congress is not concerned with religious liberty like you 
are.
  Come on. Let's work together. We don't want anyone to be 
discriminated against--anyone. We can do this in a way that 
accommodates everyone, and then we can actually work toward agreement.
  To say it in the words of J.K. Rowling this past week where she 
wrote, ``All I'm asking--all I want--is for similar empathy, similar 
understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole 
crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats 
and abuse.''
  Let's work together to get equality. This bill does not do it in this 
form; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am disappointed that my colleagues 
have come to the floor to stand in the way of a debate, in this 
esteemed Chamber, over issues of freedom, issues of opportunity, and 
issues of equality that affect millions of LGBTQ Americans.
  What did we hear in their conversation? My colleague from Utah says 
there is no chance for debate. Has my colleague forgotten that bringing 
a bill to the floor brings it to debate? Is that such a lost art in the 
Senate that my colleague thinks debating a bill on the floor somehow 
squelches debate? It is a mystery to me how one can make the argument 
that bringing a bill to the floor kills debate.
  My colleague from Oklahoma laments there is no committee action. 
Well, my colleague might be reminded that for 400 days this party has 
controlled whether or not there is committee action on this bill; that 
it is the majority that decides whether a committee addresses the 
issues before it. Is not 400 days of inaction in committee an argument 
to have the conversation here as a committee of the whole? Isn't that 
what we are asking for--a committee of the whole to debate these key 
issues?
  My colleagues have also referred to how somehow this bill affects 
religious rights, and I am taken back through the history of the 
conversation and dialogue about equality and opportunity in America, 
how every time we seek to end discrimination, someone says: But wait--
religious rights.
  Remember that this was the argument against Black and Brown Americans 
having equality here in the United States of America because their 
religion said they are not equal and they shouldn't be let in the door 
and I should have the right to not let them in the door.
  I should have the right to discriminate. Isn't that the conversation 
we heard around the opportunity for women in America to play a full 
role in our society, that people had a religious foundation for 
discriminating between men and women? Well, I tell you that this 
Nation, although imperfect, was founded on a vision that everyone is 
created equal and has a full chance to participate.
  We have worked over hundreds of years to get toward the goal that 
every child can thrive in America, no matter their gender, no matter 
the color of their skin, no matter if they are identified as gay, 
lesbian, or bisexual, no matter if they are transgender. That is the 
conversation we should be having here.
  I feel the injury of a Senate that is no longer a Senate, where 
people tremble in their seats over the idea of having a debate. What 
has happened to this esteemed body that that should be the case?

[[Page S3085]]

  So let us not rest. For those colleagues across the aisle who have 
said that the Supreme Court shouldn't have acted this week, that it 
should be the legislature that acts, and yet come to the floor and 
don't argue--fail to argue--that we should, in fact, act, isn't that 
obstruction of the legislative process?
  I would encourage my colleagues who say that there are important 
issues to be considered to go to their leadership and say ``Let's get 
the committee that has this bill, the Equality Act, to start doing its 
job: Hold the hearings; hold the conversation'' because to fail to 
argue that it should be done in committee while you lament on the floor 
that the committee hasn't acted is certainly an argument with no 
integrity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3957

  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Confederate 
monuments that are in our hallowed Halls of Congress. I would like to 
make a live UC request, but preceding that request, I want to make just 
a few very brief remarks.
  The National Statuary Hall, where these Confederate statues are in 
the Capitol, is intended to honor the highest ideals of our Nation. It 
is intended to honor the spirit of our country and those who exhibited 
this spirit with heroism, with courage, and with distinction.
  It is a rare honor that every State gets to pick two people, out of 
the entire history of the country, who so exemplify the values, the 
spirit, and the honor of America. There are only 100 statues--just 100 
statues--two from every State.
  Between 1901 and 1931, 12--12--Confederate statues were placed in the 
National Statuary Hall, that hallowed hall. During the vast majority of 
that same period, from 1901 through 1929, after a vicious period of 
voter suppression and violence against African-American voters and a 
stripping de facto of their rights, and often de jure, not a single 
African American served in either of the Congress. In fact, the exact 
same year the first Confederate statue was placed in the Capitol, 1901, 
was also the year that the last African-American person would serve in 
Congress for almost 30 years--almost 70 from just the South.
  This is a period that we don't teach enough about in our country. It 
is a period of untold violence of domestic terrorism, of the rise of 
the Klan and other White supremacist organizations in which, from the 
late 1800s to about 1950, literally thousands of Americans--about 4,400 
well-documented cases--were lynched in this country.
  We cannot separate the Confederate statues from this history and 
legacy of White supremacy in this country. Indeed, in the vast history 
of our Nation, those Confederate statues represent 4 years--roughly 4 
years--of the Confederacy. The entire history of our country hails as 
heroes people who took up arms against their own Nation, people who 
sought to keep and sustain that vile institution of slavery, who led us 
into the bloodiest war of our country's history, who lost battle after 
battle until they were defeated soundly. The relics of that 4-plus year 
period, giving this sacred space to these traders upon our Nation, is 
not just an assault to the ideals of America as a whole, but they are a 
painful, insulting, difficult injury being compounded to so many 
American citizens who understand the very desire to put people who 
represented 4-plus years of treason, the very desire to put them there 
in an era of vast terrorism, was yet another attempt at the suppression 
of some of our citizens in this country.
  The continued presence of these statues in the halls is an affront to 
African Americans and the ideals of our Nation. When we proclaim this 
not just to be a place of liberty and justice for all, but as we seek 
to be a more beloved nation, a kinder nation, a nation of equal respect 
and equal dignity, it is an assault on all of those ideals.
  I would like to ask for unanimous consent, but before I do so, I 
would like to yield to the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first I want to thank my dear friend, 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  Our caucus and the American people are lucky to have him as such a 
champion, not only for this proposal but for all of his work in recent 
years on legislation related to police reform, racial justice, and so 
many other issues.
  In a moment, my friend will ask to pass a bill that will do something 
very simple and, indeed, long overdue: It will remove the statues here 
in the Capitol of men who would rend this country apart by war in order 
to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend the vile institution of slavery.
  There is a movement in America right now that demands we confront the 
poison of racism in our country. We must do this in many ways, both 
substantive and symbolic. This bill is just one of many steps we must 
take to acknowledge the painful history of America's original sin--
slavery--and to clarify for all generations that the men who defended 
it shall hold no place of honor in our Nation's history books.
  States and localities are removing Confederate statues in their 
public parks and municipal buildings. NASCAR has banned the Confederate 
flag at its events. We will soon debate renaming military installations 
after Confederate generals. Why should the Capitol, of all places--a 
symbol of the Union, a place where every American is supposed to have 
representation--continue to venerate such ignoble figures?
  Opponents of the bill will say that removing these statues is akin to 
forgetting or trying to erase history. No, it is not. Remembering 
history is a lot different than celebrating it.
  We teach history in our schools and universities and museums. No 
doubt, the Civil War will continue to merit study, but statues and 
memorials are symbols of honor, and we need not reserve them for men 
who represent such a dishonorable cause.
  Leader McConnell has ducked this issue and has said that the States 
should continue to decide who to send to the Capitol. Candidly, I don't 
think it would be too imposing to ask our States not to send statues of 
people who actively fought against this country. You know, there is a 
reason that Connecticut doesn't send a statue of Benedict Arnold to the 
Capitol.
  We have a lot of work to do to unwind centuries of racial injustice 
embedded in our laws and in our institutions. One of the simplest 
things we could do is to haul out the statues of a few old racists who 
represent the very antithesis of the building in which we now stand and 
the ideals we struggle to live up to. This, my friends, is the easy 
part.
  Let us pass this bill today and send a message to the American people 
that we are serious about dismantling institutional racism piece by 
piece, brick by brick, statue by statue, starting with our own House--
the people's House--the Nation's Capitol Building.
  I yield again to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 3957 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
that we just got this bill assigned to the Rules Committee. The bill 
would have the effect of abandoning agreements we have entered into 
with the States and the States have entered into with us.
  I would certainly like to have some time to decide if we should have 
a hearing on this. I would like to get the opinion of people who are 
taking similar statues out of the building. I would also like to find 
out what other States have in mind as their part of the agreement.
  The Democratic leader just said that States and localities are 
removing these statues. Each of these States would have the right to 
remove this statue, and some are.
  This is an agreement with the States. It goes back to 1864. By 1933, 
Statuary Hall was full, and Congress, again, authorized this program by 
saying that

[[Page S3086]]

these statues could be placed in the Capitol. It took until about 2000 
until there were 100 statues from the States. States are limited to two 
from each State. With 50 States, there were 100 statues by 2000.
  At that point, the Congress passed another law providing a way that 
the States, for the first time, could take a statue out. Even in 2000, 
there was no suggestion then or before then that Congress would decide 
whether the statue that the State wanted to put in could be put into 
the building.
  As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer's State, Nebraska, just 
recently replaced Williams Jennings Bryan with Chief Standing Bear 
under the provisions made to do that.
  Congress has been very prescriptive on how this happens. The State 
would have to pass legislation; the Governor would have to sign it to 
put a statue in the building; and Congress would determine only if the 
statue met the requirements that the other statues had been held to. 
Until now, that has been the congressional part of this agreement with 
the States to take a statue out of the collection and replace it with 
another one. My State, Missouri, is replacing Thomas Hart Benton with 
Harry Truman. The legislature had to agree what statue would go out, 
what statue would come in, and Congress would then accept that statue 
if it met the standards.
  Again, we can do away with that program. We could do a lot of things. 
But we have entered into that agreement.
  The forts, as an example--and, again, the minority leader mentioned 
the forts. The forts are named totally by the Congress. I expressed my 
belief this week and last week that it would be absolutely appropriate, 
in my view, to review the names that the forts have been named after, 
including the forts that are named after Confederate military leaders, 
and change those names. We can do that all on our own. We haven't told 
North Carolina that a fort has to be named after General Bragg. We 
haven't told Texas that a fort has to be named after Confederate 
General Hood. We can change those.
  I am very open to looking at that and likely doing that. I just 
think, for my friend from New Jersey, that this is a more complicated 
arrangement than activity on the floor today would suggest.
  I would also point out that in 2000, since Congress said that you can 
replace statues with another statue--you have to take a statue out to 
put a statue in, but you can replace statues, eight of those statues 
have already been replaced, and eight more are in the process of being 
replaced. I think four or five of the statues that have been replaced 
or would be replaced were in the standard of the Confederate statues.
  I am encouraged that States are looking at their history, and they 
are looking at who has come since they put those statues in. Arkansas 
replaced Uriah Milton Rose, a Confederate statue, with Daisy Gatson 
Bates, a civil rights leader. Florida replaced Edmund Kirby-Smith with 
Mary McLeod Bethune, an educator, a Presidential adviser, and civil 
rights leader. Arkansas is in the process of replacing one of these 
statues.
  I think that today's action would violate our agreement with the 
States. I frankly thank my friend from New Jersey for encouraging the 
Governors, encouraging the speakers of the house to do what they have 
every right--and the Congress, in fact, in 2000, gave them the right--
to do.
  The minority leader was the chairman of the committee that determines 
all of this just a handful of years ago and took no actions to do what 
the Senate is talking about doing today.
  So with that in mind, I object
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, if I could just respond--I know how busy 
my colleague is. He has a well-earned reputation on both sides of this 
body for his sincerity, for his decency, and for his honor. I take to 
heart his words that this is often not a good forum in which to try to 
push a piece of legislation that might have controversy on both sides. 
I understand his sincere concerns with that.
  I guess he also understands the sincerity with which I bring this up: 
the hurt and the pain that these statues represent in a place where 
millions of Americans come to the Capitol and see this as their body.
  I say to the Senator, because there are complications in this and 
there are issues we would have to work through as a Senate, I guess the 
one last appeal to your more senior status and maybe your friendship is 
this: Will you join me, at least, on a letter to the appropriate 
committee, asking them to at least have a hearing on this issue so that 
we could have a full vetting of all of the complexities and have a real 
discussion on something that is a pressing concern? I note that you 
know it is a pressing concern because some States are already taking 
action.
  You see this action being taken across various parts of our country. 
You see this issue being pushed into the national consciousness. You 
see Republicans and Democrats, from Nikki Haley to my dear friend, the 
former mayor of New Orleans, Mayor Landrieu--I think it would be just 
and right that, perhaps, you and I, in a show of bipartisan concern and 
sincere awareness of the complexity of this issue, could just join--the 
two of us--in a letter asking the committee to take up this issue in 
due time so that we can have an appropriate discussion from all 
perspectives on this issue.
  Mr. BLUNT. If I could have the chance to respond here----
  Mr. BOOKER. Of course.
  Mr. BLUNT. This bill was just assigned to our committee. This is a 
discussion that, I guess appropriately, we might have had before I was 
asked to come to the floor to assert the rights of the committee, to 
have the opportunity to think about that. I don't know that I want to 
negotiate that right here. But as I said, and my friend heard just a 
moment ago, I would like to hear from the States that are replacing 
statues and I would like to hear from the States that are thinking 
about replacing statues if this is a problem in the process of, under 
the current structure, solving itself.
  I am glad to have continued discussions about this. I certainly don't 
impugn my friend's motives. You know, you can question somebody's 
decision to maybe bring a bill this quickly to the floor without giving 
us a chance to talk about it, but I have no interest, then, in 
impugning my friend's motives and understand some of the concerns my 
friend would have on this topic.
  Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, sir.
  If I may, I will make a personal appeal for a hearing on these 
matters. I hope that we can do that in due time. I know the pace at 
which the Senate often works, but I am grateful for this open dialogue 
and I know you had to adjust your schedule so I am grateful for your 
time and generosity.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.