[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H633-H660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
                              EQUALITY ACT

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I call 
up

[[Page H634]]

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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill 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, 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. In addition, some persons are subjected to 
     discrimination based on a combination or the intersection of 
     multiple protected characteristics. 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. This discrimination inflicts a 
     range of tangible and intangible harms, sometimes even 
     including serious physical injury or death. An explicit and 
     comprehensive national solution is needed to address this 
     discrimination, including the full range of remedies 
     available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       (12) Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes 
     discrimination based on an individual's actual or perceived 
     romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other 
     persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. LGBTQ 
     people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly 
     experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. 
     Many people are subjected to discrimination because of 
     others' perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual 
     orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the 
     identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.
       (13) Numerous provisions of Federal law expressly prohibit 
     discrimination on the basis of sex, and Federal courts and 
     agencies have correctly interpreted these prohibitions on sex 
     discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes. In 
     particular, the Supreme Court of the United States correctly 
     held in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) 
     that the prohibition on employment discrimination because of 
     sex under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     inherently includes discrimination because of sexual 
     orientation or transgender status.
       (14) This Act makes explicit that existing Federal statutes 
     prohibiting sex discrimination in employment (including in 
     access to benefits), healthcare, housing, education, credit, 
     and jury service also prohibit sexual orientation and gender 
     identity discrimination.
       (15) 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-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.
       (16) 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 had encountered 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. Another survey found that 82 percent 
     of gender nonbinary people experiencing homelessness lacked 
     access to shelter.
       (17) 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 are 
     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.
       (18) 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, the poverty rate for 
     older women in same-sex couples is twice that of older 
     different-sex couples.
       (19) 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.
       (20) Numerous studies document the shortage of qualified 
     and available homes for the approximately 424,000 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 of care without a permanent family placement. 
     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. 
     It also sends a negative message about LGBTQ people to 
     children and youth in the child welfare system about who is, 
     and who is not, considered fit to be a

[[Page H635]]

     parent. While the priority should be on providing the 
     supports necessary to keep children with their families, when 
     removal is required, barring discrimination in foster care 
     and adoption will increase the number of homes available to 
     foster children waiting for foster and adoptive families.
       (21) 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 of 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 services 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.
       (22) Courts consistently have found that the government has 
     a compelling interest in preventing and remedying 
     discrimination. For example, the Supreme Court of the United 
     States found there to be a compelling government interest in 
     eliminating sex discrimination in Board of Directors of 
     Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 
     549 (1987). Because discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation or gender identity inherently is a form of sex 
     discrimination, as held in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. 
     Ct. 1731 (2020), this Act furthers the compelling government 
     interest in providing redress for the serious harms to mental 
     and physical health, financial security and wellbeing, civic 
     participation, freedom of movement and opportunity, personal 
     dignity, and physical safety that result from discrimination. 
     Consistent with the role nondiscrimination laws play in 
     protecting lives and livelihoods, alleviating suffering, and 
     improving individual and public health, the Supreme Court of 
     the United States has long recognized, under the decision in 
     Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 
     (1964), that these laws also benefit society as a whole by 
     ending the ``disruptive effect'' discrimination has on travel 
     and commerce, and by creating a level field for all 
     participants in a given sector.
       (23) As with all prohibitions on invidious discrimination, 
     this Act furthers the government's compelling interest in the 
     least restrictive way because only by forbidding 
     discrimination is it possible to avert or redress the harms 
     described in this subsection.
       (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),'';
       (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,''; and
       (4) in subsection (h), by striking ``sex'' the second place 
     it appears and inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation 
     and 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. 209. 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--
       (1) in section 2301(b)(2), by striking ``sex,'' and 
     inserting ``sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity),'';
       (2) in section 2302--

[[Page H636]]

       (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,'';

[[Page H637]]

       (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 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 shall be debatable for 90 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Commitment on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) 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.
  In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of 
LGBTQ Americans explicit 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 is 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 did not 
include LGBTQ individuals.
  Once again, we have an opportunity to continue our march toward 
justice and 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 resources in the face of 
discrimination.
  Today, I expect we will hear arguments asking us to pick and choose 
which of our Nation's children deserve our support, to pick which of 
our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their lives to 
the fullest. But that is a false choice and one designed to pit rights 
for some against rights for all. There is no question that all our 
children, including those who are transgender, deserve the freedom to 
choose their own path.
  Many of the protections codified by this bill already exist 
throughout the country, whether through court decisions or in State 
laws. In those 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. And trans athletes from high schools to the Olympic 
trials sometimes win and sometimes 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, where they happen to live, or 
who represents them. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a 
future Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections. They 
deserve the same protections as other communities that have 
historically faced discrimination, and that requires action from 
Congress.
  For decades, the LGBTQ community has been telling us their stories of 
outrageous discrimination. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, I say that 
it is far past time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to 
defend their existence.
  To the LGBTQ community and, in particular, the trans youth and 
athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor 
today: We see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will 
continue to fight for you.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), for his 
tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to shepherd it 
through the legislative process.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this landmark 
legislation.
  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 non-discrimination protections for women and others.
  In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of 
LGBTQ Americans explicit 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 did not 
include LGBTQ individuals.
  Once again, we have an opportunity before us to continue our march 
toward 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.
  Today, I expect we will hear arguments that will ask us to pick and 
choose which of our nation's children deserve our support--to pick 
which of our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their 
lives to the fullest.
  Despite what we will hear, that is a false choice--one designed to 
pit rights for some against rights for all. There is no question that 
all our children--including those that are transgender--deserve to have 
the freedom to choose their own path.
  The Equality Act seeks to make our civil rights laws inclusive of all 
people who have historically faced discrimination. Not only does it 
provide explicit protections for the LGBTQ community, it also expands 
protections for women and people of color.
  Under the Equality Act, women will finally be protected from 
discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. 
By expanding the existing definition of public accommodations under the 
Civil Rights Act, the Equality Act also increases protections for 
people on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin.
  People of color should not need to fear being targeted and 
discriminated against while shopping, just because of the color of 
their skin. Muslim people should not need to fear being targeted while 
flying, just because of their religion. And LGBTQ people and women 
should not need to fear being denied services in public spaces and 
services simply because of who they are. At long last, this legislation 
provides them with legal recourse if they face such discrimination.
  Many of the protections being codified by this bill already exist 
across all 50 states following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. 
Clayton County in 2020, and we know that more than 20 states have had 
some version of the protections before us today even before the Supreme 
Court's ruling. In those 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. And trans athletes, from high schools to 
the Olympic trials, sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like 
everyone else.
  Opponents of the Equality Act argue that it undermines women's 
rights. That assertion is false. The Equality Act simply ensures that 
all women, including trans women, are included in female institutions 
and programs.

[[Page H638]]

  When it comes to athletics, the Equality Act ensures that LGBTQ 
students--including women and girls who are lesbian, bisexual, or 
transgender--will have the same opportunity to participate in sports as 
their peers. Trans women and girls have been participating in sports 
consistent with their gender at all levels for years, and we have not 
seen any dominance by trans athletes.
  Young people who are trans are competing in sports for the same 
reasons as their peers who are not transgender--including to be part of 
a team and to challenge themselves--and they deserve the same 
opportunities as their cisgender peers.
  That is why the Women's Sports Foundation, National Women's Law 
Center, and hundreds of athletes in women's sports and other women's 
rights groups have consistently voiced their strong support for 
inclusion of transgender women and girls in women's sports and have 
opposed efforts to exclude them. Women's sports can play a critical 
role in women's development and equality and including all women and 
girls in women's sports strengthens women's sports.
  Similarly, single-sex institutions like women's and men's colleges 
have played an important and historic role in making our nation's 
higher education system the strongest and most diverse in the world. To 
be clear, nothing in the Equality Act should be construed to prohibit 
or otherwise limit or affect the ability of single-sex colleges to 
maintain their single-sex status. Moreover, it is not Congress's 
intention to alter in any way Title IX or the scope or availability of 
its exemptions as they currently stand.
  In addition, the Equality Act will not undermine services like 
single-sex homeless shelters or single sex-facilities. It will simply 
ensure that these facilities do not discriminate on the basis of sexual 
orientation or gender identity. Arguments that providing transgender 
people access to facilities consistent with their gender identity will 
undermine women's safety have no basis in reality. Laws protecting 
LGBTQ people from discrimination do not authorize anyone to engage in 
abusive or harassing behavior.
  That is why over 300 domestic violence and sexual assault 
organizations, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, 
the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and the National 
Center for Victims of Crime, have signed onto a National Consensus 
Statement of Anti-Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations in 
Support of Full and Equal Access for the Transgender Community.
  Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and 
physical violence, and the real risk of violence occurs when 
transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities.
  The idea that transgender people need explicit protections from 
discrimination is not new. Dozens of states provide nondiscrimination 
protections in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity, 
and in those states we have not seen the parade of horribles that 
Equality Act opponents raise.
  The request to pit people's rights against each other is not based on 
the real-world outcomes--for which ample evidence exists to the 
contrary--but a continued resistance to advancing rights for those 
different from so many of us here in Congress. The ability to have a 
job, to receive medical care, or to rent a home should not depend on 
who someone is, where they happen to live, or who represents then 
politically. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a future 
Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections, and they 
deserve the same protections as other communities that have 
historically faced discrimination. And that requires action from 
Congress.
  For decades, the LGBTQ community has been coming here over and over 
to tell us their stories of outrageous discrimination. To my 
colleagues, I say, it is far past time we stop asking them to come to 
the Capitol just to defend their existence.
  To the LGBTQ community--and in particular the trans youth and 
athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor 
today--we see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will 
continue to fight for you.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative David 
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.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a unanimous consent request at the 
desk.
  My request is to allow a 30-second moment of silence for the passing 
of Rush Limbaugh, one of the greatest radio hosts ever, and I make that 
as a formal request.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I object.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, may I request a point of personal 
privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Haaland). The gentleman has been 
recognized for debate.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, discrimination is wrong. We all know 
that. As children, we learn the golden rule: Treat others the way you 
yourself want to be treated.
  But, right now, discrimination is a fact of life for millions of 
LGBTQ Americans.
  The fact is that, in most States, an LGBTQ person is at risk of being 
denied housing, education, or the right to serve on a jury because of 
who they are. That is why we are here today to consider H.R. 5, the 
Equality Act.
  The Equality Act does no more and no less than say LGBTQ people 
deserve the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans, 
most fundamentally the right to live lives free of discrimination. It 
builds on the Civil Rights Act and other existing laws to extend anti-
discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
Americans.
  President Biden has said that getting this bill signed into law is 
one of his top priorities for his first 100 days in office.
  I want to thank him and a few other people for making this bill a 
priority: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Whip Clyburn, and the 
co-chairs of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus: Mark Takano, Mark Pocan, Sean 
Patrick Maloney, Angie Craig, Sharice Davids, Chris Pappas, Mondaire 
Jones, and Ritchie Torres.
  I thank them all for being true champions for our community.
  Madam Speaker, every American deserves to be treated with respect and 
dignity. That is what the Equality Act will achieve for the LGBTQ 
community by providing protection against discrimination in employment, 
education, housing, credit, jury service, public accommodations, and 
Federal funding.
  I am proud to say this bill has broad support from across the 
political spectrum, including groups from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
to the ACLU and everyone in between.
  Madam Speaker, 83 percent of Americans support this bill, including 
68 percent--more than two out of three--Republican voters.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle: As you consider this 
bill, I hope you will bear in mind how your vote will be remembered 
years from now.
  Will you be remembered in the same breath as all those who fought for 
equal rights in the past: Freedom Riders, suffragettes, the anti-
apartheid activists? Or will you be remembered along with those who 
stood in the way of progress?
  This bill is personal for me and personal for millions of LGBTQ 
people and our loved ones. Madam Speaker, you all have family members, 
friends, and coworkers who identify as LGBTQ.
  I want you to ask yourself: What does this vote mean for them and how 
you will look them in the eye if you vote to uphold the current system 
that allows them to be discriminated against?
  The LGBTQ community has waited long enough. The time has come to 
extend the blessings of liberty and equality to all Americans, 
regardless of who they are or whom they love.
  Vote ``yes'' and pass the Equality Act today.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
  Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
so-called Equality Act.
  Unfortunately, this is another bill which did not go through the 
committee process or real debate.
  The Judiciary Committee should have had an opportunity to consider 
H.R. 5 in a legislative hearing. Sadly, this is the first time we are 
debating, just hours before it is set to receive a vote, with no 
ability to propose any amendments. I am not sure why we even bother to 
have committees if we

[[Page H639]]

are passing significant legislation without them.

  I would just like to highlight three major concerns.
  Concern number one: Broad scope. And I agree with the gentleman from 
New York, there are some protections that already exist. Last year, the 
issue of possible employment discrimination of gay and transgender 
individuals was addressed by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by 
Justice Gorsuch. But this bill has very sweeping changes with potential 
major adverse implications for religious freedoms and women's rights 
and safety.
  Concern number two: Broad and ambiguous definition of gender 
identity. This language can have unintended consequences and be taken 
advantage of by criminals or sexual predators. Also, the safety of 
women in prisons, juvenile detention facilities, and domestic violence 
shelters could be put at risk, which would force them to share 
traditionally women-only spaces with biological men, even if a 
biological male fraudulently gains access.
  Concern number three: Opportunities and safety for female athletes. 
The science is clear, men are biologically stronger than women.
  According to a 2019 Duke University study that involved dozens of 
specialists in sports science and medicine: ``Biological males and 
biological females are materially different with respect to main 
physical attributes that contribute to elite athletic performance.''
  The Women's Sports Policy Working Group--a group of champion female 
athletes and academics--has stated that even when height, size, and 
weight are equal, males are incrementally stronger and generate more 
explosive force so that if males and females are forced to compete 
against each other, the physical safety of females is differently at 
risk.
  The reality has already shown itself to be harmful to the 
opportunities and safety of female athletes. For example, a female 
track athlete in Connecticut lost potential scholarships after being 
pushed out of qualifying for regional track meet spots by two 
transgender athletes. A transgender MMA fighter caused significant 
damage to a female athlete's skull.
  These examples demonstrate the far-reaching consequences this bill 
can have on women and girls, should it become law.
  American women have worked very hard to secure our rights for many 
years, and just last year we celebrated 100 years of women's suffrage. 
But this is a giant step back. Perhaps if this body had actually 
deliberated over this bill and engaged the proper legislative process, 
these concerns could have been addressed.
  A vote for the Equality Act in its current form is a vote against 
religious freedom, against women, against female athletes, against 
incarcerated women, and against science and safety. A vote ``yes'' on 
this bill is a vote against our daughters.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, does anybody know what it means to be 
called names; to be thrown out of your apartment; to be thrown off of a 
job; and most sadly, to not be allowed to love the person that you 
love?
  In the Hodges case, that was settled when they determined that no 
union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest 
ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. And then they 
ruled. They asked for equal dignity in the eyes of law; the 
Constitution grants them that right.
  I rise in support of the Equality Act because I know what it means to 
be thrown out, to be looked at, and to be undermined. Our friends in 
the LGBTQ community every single day experience that. Trans women who 
are African American have been murdered.
  This gives us equal dignity under the law. We could keep a job. If 
you are in that community, you can be married already, obviously, but 
you can keep a job. You can get healthcare; you can ensure that you can 
keep an apartment. You can walk in dignity.
  We need the Equality Act as we have needed civil rights laws 
throughout this Nation.
  If we are the place of ``We the People,'' if this Nation is based 
upon, we the people, then we will pass the Equality Act today. We will 
pass it now.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his leadership and the 
gentleman from New York.
  Madam 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 2021.''
  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.
  Madam 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. 644, 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 daily and too often have little recourse.
  In the 116th Congress, the Equality Act had 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.
  In the 117th Congress, the Equality Act was reintroduced with 223 
original cosponsors.
  More than 70 percent of American support the Equality Act.
  This has been a long journey; the first Equality Act was introduced 
nearly 46 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 LGBTQ Americans in too many places remain too 
vulnerable to discrimination daily 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 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.
  Madam 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 based on 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,

[[Page H640]]

and clarifying that sex includes sexual orientation and gender 
identity.
  Specifically, H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2021'' amends:
  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;
  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;
  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;
  The Fair Housing Act of 1968 to make protections against 1 housing 
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit;
  The Equal Credit Opportunity Act to make protections against 7 credit 
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity 
explicit; and
  The Jury Selections and Services Act to make protections against 
discrimination in federal jury service based on sexual orientation or 
gender identity explicit.
  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 
when the bill was marked up in the Judiciary Committee in the 116th 
Congress.
  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 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 our brothers and sisters, 
including those in the LGBTQ community.
  Madam 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 of 
2021, 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. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member on the Subcommittee of the 
Constitution and Civil Justice.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 5, which many have already labeled the inequality act because 
of the deep flaws contained in this bill.
  H.R. 5 will undermine women's rights. It will strip parental rights. 
It will gut religious freedom, and it will open a Pandora's box of a 
universal right to abortion. And that is just to name a few of the 
legislation's outrageous provisions.
  In addition to the well-founded, substantive concerns that you will 
hear a lot about in the next 45 minutes, the majority has decided to 
throw process out the window. They brought this bill directly to the 
floor.
  We sit on the Judiciary Committee. We should have had a robust 
discussion on the impacts of the legislation. We didn't. There has been 
no committee action. There has been no hearing, no deliberation at all 
by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. And I think, many of us 
think, that the reason for that is because the proponents didn't want 
the bill to be exposed.
  Listen, let's make one thing clear. There are people on both sides of 
the aisle--all of us, everybody in this Chamber believes that all 
people are entitled to dignity and respect.
  We believe that every single person is made in the image of God and, 
because of that, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. 
We believe, as our founding document said, that God is the one that 
endows us with the inalienable rights that we have. They ought to be 
protected and respected.
  But unfortunately, the Democrats' misguided effort here tramples all 
over many of those fundamental rights that God gives us, the right to 
life, the right to religious freedom.
  While it is true that H.R. 5 does not include the word ``abortion''--
our colleagues keep reminding us of that--it does reference pregnancy 
and ``related medical conditions'' as areas of protection against 
discrimination. Everybody knows that this historically has led to the 
inclusion of abortion. We are opening a door here for the rampant 
taxpayer funding of abortions on demand; in addition to the myriad 
number of conscience protections that exist for businesses and medical 
professionals. You will hear a lot about that today as well.
  It is telling that the text of the bill also directly undermines the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Let's remember, RFRA was widely 
supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by President 
Clinton in 1993. RFRA's lead Democrat sponsor was our colleague, 
Representative Nadler. It passed the House by unanimous consent and the 
Senate by a vote of 97-3.

[[Page H641]]

  But now, the Equality Act, or the inequality act, explicitly 
undercuts RFRA by negating its application to the underlying 
legislation. In other words, those protections won't apply anymore.
  This is unprecedented. It is dangerous. It is an attack on our first 
freedom, the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights, religious 
liberty. This is something that our faith communities are deeply 
concerned about and all of us are as individuals.
  Look, I have to save time for my colleagues, and I will just conclude 
by saying this bill is a severe blow to women's rights, to people of 
faith, to every parent, every student, every medical professional and 
so many more. Because we believe in the dignity and value of every 
person, we have to oppose this dangerous, un-American legislation. I 
pray that we will.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of this legislation. I 
have stood in support of this right for over 25 years.
  When I was a Tennessee State Senator, I was the only member of the 
State Senate to vote against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It 
was a legal pejorative; all people should have a civil right to be 
treated equally and to be given due process of the law. And they should 
have that today, and that is what this bill stands for.
  This is a continuing battle that my friend, Julian Bond said was a 
fight for fairness, justice, and equality against injustice and 
bigotry.
  We need to pass this bill and continue our move to a more perfect 
union.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, 
the so-called Equality Act.
  This bill should be called the inequality act as there is nothing 
equalizing about it. In fact, this bill hijacks the Civil Rights Act, 
codifying inequality into Federal law. Simply put, this piece of 
legislation blatantly discriminates against women, girls, parents, 
people of faith, and many more.
  To start, H.R. 5 dismantles Title IX, ending equal opportunity for 
females in education and sports. Similar policies are already wreaking 
havoc at the local level. In Connecticut, the State's Interscholastic 
Athletic Conference accepts boys who identify as females in their 
competitions. Two of these male athletes have gone on to claim 15 
women's track championship titles since 2017.
  As someone who enjoyed playing sports and coaching high school track 
for many years, imagining the damage these policies will cause to women 
and girls is heartbreaking.
  The inequality act further discriminates against a woman's right to 
privacy and protection, especially while seeking refuge in a domestic 
violence shelter. We have already seen similar policies in Alaska and 
California put vulnerable women in danger.
  H.R. 5 also discriminates against parents. Parents who dare to oppose 
doctors performing life-changing surgeries or using hormone-altering 
drugs on their children will be considered abusive and neglectful. This 
has already happened in Ohio as a couple lost custody of their daughter 
after advocating against male testosterone supplements.

  This abhorrent destruction of parental rights is why I introduced an 
amendment that would ensure parents retain their right to make 
important choices for their children, especially concerning mental and 
medical care. Predictably, Democrats did not even consider my 
amendment, highlighting their desire to silence the voices of families 
across the country.
  Faith-minded individuals and organizations would also face 
discrimination under the inequality act, including adoption agencies 
and charities. Again, similar policies already exist in New York, 
Illinois, and Pennsylvania, forcing faith-based adoption agencies to 
shut down rather than violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. 
These policies only harm would-be parents and children in need of a 
forever home.
  Shockingly, it doesn't stop there. The inequality act clearly 
stipulates that religious beliefs and faith no longer matter in the 
Democrats' new world order. Living by your faith will be viewed as evil 
instead of good.
  Sadly, this bill contains no language to protect businesses or 
healthcare providers from being forced to pay for abortions. It also 
may require healthcare providers to facilitate abortion services.
  The biggest impact? Hundreds of thousands more innocent, unborn 
children will tragically perish from abortion, with Americans footing 
the bill.
  This grossly misnamed bill punishes everyday citizens, silences free 
speech, and instills discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill does not affect Title IX and, 
consequently, religious freedom at all.
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, as a woman, as a feminist, as 
someone who lettered in basketball and truly believes in women's 
sports, this is the Equality Act. Any misrepresentation by some 
speakers today is just totally unfounded.
  While we have made much progress in recent years, the reality is that 
many still face discrimination simply because of who they are and who 
they love. That means that LGBTQ Americans can be fired, refused 
housing, or denied services simply because of who they are.
  I am a proud original cosponsor, and I am also a woman of faith. I 
know that this Equality Act would help greatly to extend civil rights 
and civil liberties for the LGBTQ community, to live out the true 
meaning of our Nation's creed, free from the fear of harassment or 
discrimination.
  Updating Federal law will provide protections across key areas of 
life, including employment, housing, and access to public spaces and 
services. This bill has nothing to do with abortion, nothing to do with 
some of the things my colleagues across the aisle have said.
  And in my home State of Texas, we will finally have protections for 
the LGBTQ Texans.
  MR. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Democrats just said that this bill doesn't harm Title IX. They 
have said it will not hinder women's ability to participate in sports. 
That is just not true.
  They say it is not going to make it harder for women to participate 
in sports. It may not make it harder, but it is sure going to make it 
more difficult to win. We know that. That is the problem. And if that 
doesn't undermine the spirit of Title IX, I don't know what does.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is absolutely 
correct. The assertion that it doesn't impact Title IX is completely 
false. It directly amends Title IV in the Civil Rights Act. It will 
have a direct impact on educational institutions and would, therefore, 
absolutely impact women's athletics. We all know that. Everybody gets 
the joke.
  But as one of my colleagues said, it is 100 percent clear that the 
majority doesn't want to have the American people see what is in this 
bill. They don't want to have it go through committee. They don't want 
to spend time on it. They want to jam it through under the name of 
equality.
  See, you put fancy names on bills in this building and suddenly 
people think it is about something that it isn't. And we know exactly 
what this bill is about. It is about power. This bill is about power 
and control.
  This is about this institution being run by Democrats who want to 
tell the American people how to live their lives.
  They want to tell people who disagree on these issues that they need 
to go to the corner and they need to hide; that they need to give up 
their closely held beliefs and their values and they need to bow down 
to the altar of the people here and the cultural elites in Washington, 
D.C., and do what they tell us to do.

  It is an absolute abomination and flies in the face of the very 
principles upon which this Nation was founded. We know that. We see 
that. We can go through the list. We are all going through it.
  The definition of sex in H.R. 5 inserts the right to abortion into 
the Civil

[[Page H642]]

Rights Act. The Equality Act can be used to force a universal right to 
abortion until birth. It forces medical professionals to conduct or 
assist in performing abortions; forces medical professionals to perform 
certain surgeries and administer hormone blockers, even if it is 
against their medical advice; forces employers to cover sex 
reassignment surgeries; forces schools, churches, hospitals, and 
businesses to recognize a chosen gender.
  I could go down the list. But this is about power and control. It is 
the same thing about having a fence with razor wire around the people's 
Congress, around this Capitol building. It is an absolute affront to 
who we are.
  In the Declaration of Independence, where we are talking about 
rights, government is instituted among men to secure those rights.
  And the House of Representatives, supposedly the people's House, is 
using the power of this body to step on the rights of the American 
people. And it is our obligation to defend those rights. And I can tell 
you this: We are going to stand up in defense of the Constitution, our 
liberties and the Bill of Rights, and the consent of the governed 
matters.
  You do not have the consent of the governed, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. You don't. And you are pretending that you 
have got power that you do not have, and it will not end well if you 
pull this republic apart, thread by thread, and you have to look in the 
mirror and tell your kids and grandkids that this republic died on your 
watch.
  It is not going to because we are going to stand on the wall, the 
same wall that our Founders stood on, the same wall that those men at 
the Alamo stood on, and we are going to defend this Constitution in the 
name of the Declaration of Independence and the Lord that gives us the 
rights that we protect.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a number of 
documents.
                               Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Lawyers' Committee 
     for Civil Rights Under Law (hereinafter ``Lawyers'' 
     Committee''), a nonpartisan civil rights organization formed 
     at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the 
     private bar in providing legal services to address racial 
     discrimination, we urge you to vote for the Equality Act 
     (H.R. 5). The Equality Act would clarify that LGBTQ+ people 
     are protected against discrimination in access to credit. 
     housing, education, and employment under federal law, as well 
     as to strengthen public accommodation antidiscrimination for 
     all people.
       The Lawyers' Committee strongly believes that the Equality 
     Act is an essential step in fulfilling our nation's 
     commitment to civil rights for all people. Unfortunately, 
     discrimination is a persistent problem for millions of people 
     in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly for those who also 
     identify as people of color. Everyone in America, regardless 
     of who they are, is entitled to equal rights and should be 
     free to pursue career and educational opportunities and live 
     their daily lives free from discrimination.
       Black Americans and other people of color continue to face 
     persistent discrimination while engaging in commonplace 
     transactions, errands, and tasks, such as shopping and 
     accessing transportation like taxis and car services. The 
     Equality Act would finally make this discrimination illegal, 
     as it strengthens the public accommodations provision in the 
     1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress must act now to pass the 
     Equality Act to clarify and strengthen federal civil rights 
     protections so everyone across the country can engage in 
     public life without the fear of harassment or discrimination 
     because of who they are.
       As Congress considers this important bill, we are committed 
     to ensuring the Equality Act does solely what it was intended 
     to do: clarify and strengthen existing federal civil rights 
     protections for everyone in America. We strongly oppose any 
     effort to weaken any existing federal civil rights law the 
     Equality Act would amend.
       We urge you to vote for final passage of the Equality Act 
     because no one in our country should be discriminated against 
     for who they are. It is time for Congress to clarify and 
     strengthen federal civil rights protections for all 
     Americans.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Damon T. Hewitt,
         Acting President & Executive Director, Executive Vice 
           President, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
           Law.
       Erinn D. Martin,
         Policy Counsel, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
           Law.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                   Chicago, IL, February 23, 2021.
     RE: ABA Support for H.R. 5, The Equality Act of 2021.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf 
     of the American Bar Association and its over 400.000 members. 
     I am writing to voice our support for H.R. 5. The Equality 
     Act of 2021. which addresses the need to protect every 
     American regardless of their sexual orientation or gender 
     identity. We offer the following comments in support of the 
     legislation and request that this letter be made part of the 
     hearing record.
       The Equality Act will include LGBTQ+ people in the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. Over 50 years ago, when this landmark 
     civil rights legislation was enacted, a minority group was 
     omitted; this needs to be rectified. Currently, the rights of 
     LGBTQ+ individuals depend on the state where they reside, and 
     in close to 30 states, LGBTQ+ people are at risk of being 
     denied housing, credit. services, public accommodations, 
     education, employment, access to their children, access to 
     federally funded programs, or jury service simply because of 
     their sexual orientation or gender identity.
       There is bipartisan support for the Equality Act, and 70 
     percent of Americans support equal rights for LGBTQ+. When 
     the Equality Act was introduced in the last Congress, it 
     received unprecedented support from businesses and more than 
     500 national and statewide organizations.
       In 2018, the ABA adopted a resolution specifically 
     supporting enactment of the Equality Act. Let me elaborate on 
     our reasons for supporting this important legislation:
       1. The Equality Act will protect LGBTQ+ people from 
     workplace discrimination because of their sexual orientation, 
     gender identity, or gender expression.
       The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based 
     on race, color, religion, or national origin. The Government 
     Employee Rights Act of 1991 prohibits discrimination based on 
     race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or 
     disability. They will both be amended to include, ``sex, 
     (including sexual orientation, and gender identity).''
       Every day LGBTQ+ employees, co-workers, and job applicants 
     are subjected to discrimination in the workplace. Other 
     social groups have been protected by legislation, yet the 
     LGBTQ+ community has not been included even though their 
     livelihood, careers, and quality of life are equally 
     affected.
       The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces 
     federal laws that protect job applicants or employees from 
     discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national 
     origin, age, disability, or genetic information. In EEOC v. 
     R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, the EEOC filed a lawsuit 
     against Harris Family Funeral Homes on behalf of Aimee 
     Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired shortly after 
     telling her employer she was transgender. The Sixth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals concluded that Title VII prohibits 
     discrimination based on gender identity, thus applying to 
     businesses claiming exemption based on anti-LGBTQ+ religious 
     beliefs. In 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States 
     heard Harris consolidated with Bostock v. Clayton County, and 
     in a landmark ruling, upheld the Sixth Circuit decision 
     affirming that LGBTQ+ employees are entitled to legal 
     protections against discrimination on the basis of gender 
     identity and sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964.
       The Equality Act will codify this case law making 
     discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in the workplace 
     unlawful by explicitly stating that sexual orientation and 
     gender identity are protected traits.
       2. The Equality Act will prevent LGBTQ+ people from being 
     denied services and public accommodations because of their 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
       Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
     discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, 
     religion, or national origin. However, it is currently legal 
     in almost 30 states to deny LGBTQ+ people services without 
     cause and bar them from public accommodations such as hotels, 
     restaurants, and libraries.
       In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, school board 
     policy prohibited plaintiff from using the restrooms that 
     aligned with his gender identity. In 2015, Grimm filed a 
     lawsuit challenging the policy, on the grounds that it 
     violates his rights under Title IX and the Fourteenth 
     Amendment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 
     school board's restroom policy constitutes sex-based 
     discrimination, and that transgender individuals constitute a 
     quasi-suspect class. Applying heightened scrutiny, the court 
     held that the school board's policy is not substantially 
     related to its important interest in protecting students' 
     privacy and that, in regard to the Title IX claims, the 
     restroom policy discriminated against plaintiff on the basis 
     of sex, and that he suffered legally cognizable harm based on 
     the unlawful discrimination. The Equality Act is necessary to 
     codify this ruling for the entire

[[Page H643]]

     country. Denying public accommodations to LGBTQ+ individuals 
     is harmful to their health and dignity, and precludes them 
     from fully participating in public life.
       In addition to places of public accommodation already 
     included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equality Act will 
     revise the law to ensure that other providers of products, 
     services, and public accommodations, such as stores, 
     accountant firms, transportation, and banks, may not 
     discriminate against a protected social group.
       3. The Equality Act will prevent LGBTQ+ people from being 
     denied or evicted from housing based on their sexual 
     orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
       The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1968, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or 
     financing of housing by landlords, real estate agents, 
     municipalities, banks, other lending institutions, and 
     homeowner's insurance companies based on race, color, 
     national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability.
       LGBTQ+ individuals may be rejected when trying to purchase 
     or rent a home. LGBTQ+ people can face eviction, which may 
     have financial and legal consequences. A partner's request to 
     be added to the insurance of a homeowner may be rejected 
     which could affect the property title.
       In Smith v. Avanti, a landlord in Colorado refused to rent 
     to a same-sex couple, one of whom was also transgender. The 
     United States District Court stated that the property owner 
     violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. This was the 
     first time a federal court, placing sexual orientation and 
     gender identity under the umbrella of sex discrimination, has 
     ruled that anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination violated the Fair 
     Housing Act.
       Since homelessness is more prevalent in the LGBTQ+ 
     community than in the general population, enactment of the 
     Equality Act can help lower rates of housing insecurity.
       4. The Equality Act will ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals are 
     not denied credit based on their sexual orientation, gender 
     identity, or gender expression.
       The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits 
     discrimination based on race, color, religion, national 
     origin, sex, marital status, or age with respect to credit 
     transactions. The Equality Act will amend ECOA to include 
     ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' as protected 
     classes.
       LGBTQ+ individuals are often denied credit and mortgages. 
     The negative financial impact can mean that they are often 
     unable to become homeowners, pursue higher education or 
     vocational training, build assets, or purchase a car. By 
     amending ECOA, the Equality Act will allow for equal access 
     to credit, financial improvements, education, and affordable 
     housing.
       5. The Equality Act will protect LGBTQ+ people from 
     discrimination in jury service.
       The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 
     protects the right of a criminal defendant to a jury 
     selection process free from racial, ethnic, or gender 
     discrimination. When LGBTQ+ people are unfairly dismissed 
     from jury service, there is no recourse in the justice 
     system.
       The Equality Act will protect the integrity of the jury 
     selection process for the defendant, as well as the rights of 
     the LGBTQ+ jurors.
       The American Bar Association believes that everyone 
     deserves equal protection under the law. Nearly two-thirds of 
     LGBTQ+ Americans reported that they have experienced 
     discrimination in their everyday lives. We urge Congress to 
     pass legislation explicitly affirming that discrimination due 
     to sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex 
     stereotyping, is sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, among other federal statutes, and to 
     include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or 
     expression protections in those statutes.
       Thank you for this opportunity to convey the ABA's position 
     on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Patricia Lee Refo.
                                  ____


              The Business Coalition for the Equality Act

The Business Coalition for the Equality Act is a group of leading U.S. 
employers that support the Equality Act, which would finally guarantee 
    explicit, permanent protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
        transgender people under our existing civil rights laws.

  Launched in March 2016, the 337 member companies of HRC's Business 
   Coalition for the Equality Act have operations in all 50 states, 
    headquarters spanning 33 states and a combined $5.9 trillion in 
   revenue, and employ over 12.9 million people in the United States.

       3M Company, Saint Paul, MN; A.T. Kearney Inc., Chicago, IL; 
     ABB Inc., Carey, NC; Abercrombie & Fitch Co., New Albany, OH; 
     Accenture, New York, NY; Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA; 
     Advance Auto Parts (Advance Holding), Raleigh, NC; ADP, 
     Roseland, NJ; Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; 
     Airbnb Inc., San Francisco, CA; Airbus, Herndon, VA; Alaska 
     Airlines, Seattle, WA; Albertsons Companies, Boise, ID; Alcoa 
     Corp., Pittsburgh, PA; AlixPartners LLP, New York, NY; 
     Alliance Data Systems Corporation, Columbus, OH; Ally 
     Financial Inc., Detroit, MI; Altice USA Inc., Long Island 
     City, NY; Altria Group Inc., Richmond, VA; Amalgamated Bank, 
     New York, NY; Amazon.com Inc., Seattle, WA; American 
     Airlines, Fort Worth, TX; American Eagle Outfitters Inc., 
     Pittsburgh, PA; American Express Company, New York, NY; 
     American Express Global Business Travel, Jersey City, NJ; 
     American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Torrance, CA; Ameriprise 
     Financial, Inc., Minneapolis, MN; AMN Healthcare, San Diego, 
     CA; Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA; Applied Materials Inc., Santa 
     Clara, CA; Arconic, New York, NY; Asana, San Francisco, CA; 
     Ascena Retail Group Inc., Mahwah, NJ; Aspen Skiing Company 
     LLC, Aspen, CO; Asurion LLC, Nashville, TN; AT&T Inc., 
     Dallas, TX; Atlassian, San Francisco, CA; Avnet, Inc., 
     Phoenix, AZ; AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, New York, 
     NY.
       Bain & Co. Inc./Bridgespan Group, Boston, MA; Bank of 
     America Corp., Charlotte, NC; Bayer U.S. LLC, Whippany, NJ; 
     BASF Corp., Florham Park, NJ; BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ; Best 
     Buy Co. Inc., Richfield, MN; Biogen, Cambridge, MA; BioMarin 
     Pharmaceutical Inc., San Rafael, CA; Bird Rides Inc., Santa 
     Monica, CA; BNP Paribas, New York, NY; Boehringer lngelheim 
     USA Corp., Ridgefield, CT; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., McLean, 
     VA; Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA; Box Inc., 
     Redwood City, CA; Bridgestone Americas Holding Inc., 
     Nashville, TN; Bright Horizons, Watertown, MA; Bristol-Myers 
     Squibb Co., New York, NY; Broadridge Financial Solutions 
     Inc., Lake Success, NY; Brown-Forman Corp., Louisville, KY; 
     Brown Rudnick LLP, Boston, MA; Buckley LLP, Washington, DC.
       Caesars Entertainment Corp., Las Vegas, NV; California 
     Water Service Group, San Jose, CA; Capital One Financial 
     Corp., McLean, VA; Cardinal Health Inc., Dublin, OH; Cargill 
     Inc., Wayzata, MN; Cengage Learning Inc., Boston, MA; Chevron 
     Corp., San Ramon, CA; Chobani, Norwich, NY; Choice Hotels 
     International Inc., Rockville, MD; Cisco Systems Inc., San 
     Jose, CA; Citigroup Inc., New York, NY; Citrix Systems Inc., 
     Fort Lauderdale, FL; CME Group Inc., Chicago, IL; CNA 
     Financial Corporation, Chicago, IL; Coca-Cola Co., The, 
     Atlanta, GA; Compass, New York, NY; Compass Bancshares Inc. 
     (BBVA Compass), Birmingham, AL; Converse Inc., Boston, MA; 
     Corning, Corning, NY; Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE; 
     Coty Inc., New York, NY; Cox Enterprises Inc., Atlanta, GA; 
     CSAA Insurance Group, Walnut Creek, CA; Cummins Inc., 
     Columbus, IN; CVS Health Corp., Woonsocket, RI.
       Daniel J. Edelman Holdings, Inc. New York, NY; Danone North 
     America, White Plains, NY; Day Pitney LLP, Parsippany, NJ; 
     Darden Restaurants Inc., Orlando, FL; Debevoise & Plimpton 
     LLP, New York, NY; Deloitte LLP, New York, NY; Dell 
     Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX; Delta Air Lines Inc., 
     Atlanta, GA; Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., The, New 
     York, NY; Deutsche Bank, New York, NY; Diageo North America, 
     Norwalk, CT; Domino's Pizza, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Chemical Co., 
     The, Midland, MI; Dropbox Inc., San Francisco, CA.
       E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont), Wilmington, DE; 
     Eastern Bank Corp., Boston, MA; Eaton Corp., Cleveland, OH; 
     eBay Inc., San Jose, CA; Ecolab Inc., St. Paul, MN; Edison 
     International, Rosemead, CA; EMD Serono, MilliporeSigma, & 
     EMD Performance Materials, Burlington, MA; Emerson Electric 
     Co., St. Louis, MO; Empower Retirement, Greenwood Village, 
     CO; Ericsson Inc, Plano, TX; Ernst & Young LLP, New York, NY; 
     Estee Lauder Companies Inc., The, New York, NY; E*TRADE 
     Financial Corp., New York, NY; Evolent Health Inc., 
     Arlington, VA; Exelon Corp., Chicago, IL; Expedia Group, 
     Bellevue, WA.
       Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, CA; FactSet Research Systems 
     Inc., Norwalk, CT; First Data Corp., Atlanta, GA; Food Lion, 
     Salisbury, NC; Fossil Group Inc., Richardson, TX; Fiserv 
     Inc., Brookfield, WI.
       Gap Inc., San Francisco, CA; General Electric Co., Boston, 
     MA; General Mills Inc., Minneapolis, MN; General Motors Co., 
     Detroit, MI; GIANT Food Stores LLC, Carlisle, PA; Giant of 
     Maryland LLC, Landover, MD; Gilead Sciences Inc., Foster 
     City, CA; Glassdoor Inc., Mill Valley, CA; GlaxoSmithKline, 
     Research Triangle Park, NC; GoDaddy Inc., Scottsdale, AZ; 
     Google Inc., Mountain View, CA; Great River Energy, Maple 
     Grove, MN; Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, The, New 
     York, NY; Guidehouse Inc., Chicago, IL; Gusto, San Francisco, 
     CA.
       Halstead Real Estate, New York, NY; Hannaford Supermarkets, 
     Scarborough, ME; HERE North America LLC, Chicago, IL; Hershey 
     Co., The, Hershey, PA; Hess Corp., New York, NY; Hewlett 
     Packard Enterprise Co., Palo Alto, CA; Hilton Inc., McLean, 
     VA; Hiscox USA, New York, NY; Hogan Lovells US LLP, 
     Washington, DC; Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL; Host Hotels 
     & Resorts Inc., Bethesda, MD; HP Inc., Palo Alto, CA; HSF 
     Affiliates LLC, Irvine, CA; HSN Inc., St. Petersburg, FL; 
     Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY; Hyatt Hotels Corp., 
     Chicago, IL.
       IBM Corp., Armonk, NY; IDEX Corp., Lake Forest, IL; IHS 
     Markit Ltd., New York, NY; IKEA Holding US Inc., 
     Conshohocken, PA; Information Resources Inc., Chicago, IL; 
     Ingersoll-Rand Company, Davidson, NC; Ingram Micro, Irvine, 
     CA; Insight Enterprises Inc., Tempe, AZ; Intel Corp., Santa 
     Clara, CA; InterContinental Hotels Group Americas, Atlanta, 
     GA; International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., New York NY; 
     Iron Mountain Inc., Boston, MA.
       Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Dallas, TX; Jenner & Block 
     LLP, Chicago, IL; John

[[Page H644]]

     Hancock Financial Services Inc., Boston, MA; Johnson & 
     Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ; JPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, 
     NY; JSX, Dallas, TX; Juniper Networks Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.
       Kabbage Inc., Atlanta, GA; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; 
     Keep Truckin Inc., San Francisco, CA; Kellogg Co., Battle 
     Creek, MI; Keller Williams Realty Inc., Austin, TX; Kenneth 
     Cole Productions Inc., New York, NY; KeyCorp, Cleveland, OH; 
     KIND LLC, New York, NY; Knot Worldwide, The, Chevy Chase, MD; 
     KPMG LLP, New York, NY.
       Lendlease Americas Inc., New York, NY; Levi Strauss & Co., 
     San Francisco, CA; Linden Research Inc., Davis, CA; Lord, 
     Abbett & Co. LLC, Jersey City, NJ; Lowenstein Sandler LLP, 
     New York, NY; Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, Wilmington, 
     NC; Lyft Inc., San Francisco, CA.
       Macy's Inc., Cincinnati, OH; ManpowerGroup, Milwaukee, WI; 
     Marriott International Inc., Bethesda, MD; Mars Inc., McLean, 
     VA; Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., New York, NY; 
     Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Springfield, MA; 
     Mastercard, Purchase, NY; McAfee, Santa Clara, CA; McCormick 
     & Company, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD; McKesson Corporation, Las 
     Colinas, TX; McKinstry Co. LLC, Seattle, WA; Medtronic PLC, 
     Minneapolis, MN; Merck, Kenilworth, NJ; Meredith Corp., Des 
     Moines, IA; MGM Resorts International, Las Vegas, NV; Micron 
     Technology Inc., Boise, ID; Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA; 
     Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, Taylorsville, NC; Mondelez 
     International Inc., Deerfield, IL; Moody's Corp., New York, 
     NY; Molson Coors LLC, Chicago, IL; Morgan Stanley, New York, 
     NY; Morningstar Inc., Chicago, IL; Morris, Manning & Martin 
     LLP, Atlanta, GA.
       Nasdaq Inc., New York, NY; National Grid USA, Waltham, MA; 
     Nationwide, Columbus, OH; Navient, Wilmington, DE; Nestle, 
     Arlington, VA; Netflix Inc., Los Gatos, CA; New Belgium 
     Brewing Company, Fort Collins, CO; Nielsen, New York, NY; 
     Nike Inc., Beaverton, OR; Nordstrom Inc., Seattle, WA; 
     Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA; NortonLifeLock, 
     Mountain View, CA; Northrop Grumman Corp., Falls Church, VA; 
     Nuance Communications, Burlington, MA.
       Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., Lakeville-Middleboro, MA; 
     Office Depot Inc., Boca Raton, FL; Oracle Corp., Redwood 
     City, CA; Owens Corning, Toledo, OH.
       Palo Alto Networks, Santa Clara, CA; Patreon Inc., San 
     Francisco, CA; Pariveda Solutions Inc., Dallas, TX; Paul 
     Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA; PayPal Holdings Inc., San 
     Jose, CA; Peloton Interactive Inc, New York, NY; PepsiCo 
     Inc., Purchase, NY; PetSmart Inc., Phoenix, AZ; Pfizer Inc., 
     New York, NY; PG&E Corp., San Francisco, CA; Philip Morris 
     International, New York, NY; Pinterest Inc., San Francisco, 
     CA; Pioneer Natural Resources, Irving, TX; PNC Financial 
     Services Group Inc., The, Pittsburgh, PA; Porter Wright 
     Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, OH; Power Home Remodeling 
     Group LLC, Chester, PA; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, New York, 
     NY; Principal Financial Group, Des Moines, IA; Procter & 
     Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH; Pure Storage Inc., Mountain View, 
     CA; PVH Corp., New York, NY.
       QUALCOMM Inc., San Diego, CA; QIAGEN, Germantown, MD.
       Realogy Holdings Corp., Madison, NJ; Redfin Corp., Seattle, 
     WA; Red Hat Inc., Raleigh, NC; RE/MAX LLC, Denver, CO; 
     Replacements Ltd., McLeansville, NC; Rockwell Automation 
     Inc., Milwaukee, WI; Royal Bank of Canada, New York, NY.
       S&P Global Inc., New York, NY; Salesforce, San Francisco, 
     CA; SAP America Inc., Newtown Square, PA; Seagate Technology 
     plc, Cupertino, CA; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP, 
     Los Angeles, CA; Shire PLC, Lexington, MA; Shook, Hardy & 
     Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO; Shutterstock Inc., New York, NY; 
     Siemens Corp., Washington, DC; Sodexo Inc., Gaithersburg, MD; 
     Sony Electronics Inc., San Diego, CA; Southwest Airlines Co., 
     Dallas, TX; Spotify USA Inc., New York, NY; Square Inc., San 
     Francisco, CA; Stanley Black & Decker Inc., New Britain, CT; 
     Starbucks Corp., Seattle, WA; Steelcase Inc., Grand Rapids, 
     MI; SUEZ Water Technologies and Solutions, Trevose, PA; Sun 
     Life U.S., Wellesley Hills, MA; Sunrun Inc., San Francisco, 
     CA; SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA; Synchrony, Stamford, 
     CT; Sysco, Houston, TX.
       Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Deerfield, IL; Target 
     Corp., Minneapolis, MN; TD Ameritrade, Omaha, Omaha, NE; TD 
     Bank, N.A., Cherry Hill, NJ; Tech Data Corp., Clearwater, FL; 
     TEGNA Inc., McLean, VA; Tesla Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Teva 
     Pharmaceuticals, North Wales, PA; Texas Instruments, Dallas, 
     TX; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA; TIAA, New York, 
     NY; T-Mobile USA Inc., Bellevue, WA; Toyota Motor North 
     America Inc., Plano, TX; TPG Global LLC, Fort Worth, TX; 
     TransUnion, Chicago, IL; TripAdvisor Inc., Needham, MA; 
     Truist Financial Corporation, Charlotte, NC; Turner 
     Construction Co., New York, NY; Twitter Inc., San Francisco, 
     CA.
       U.S. Bancorp, Minneapolis, MN; Uber Technologies Inc., San 
     Francisco, CA; Ultimate Software, Weston, FL; Under Armour 
     Inc., Baltimore, MD; Unilever, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Union 
     Pacific Railroad, Ohama, NE; United Airlines, Chicago, IL; 
     United Parcel Service Inc., Atlanta, GA; Univar Solutions, 
     Inc., Downers Grove, IL; Univision Communications Inc., New 
     York, NY.
       Vanguard Group Inc., Malvern, PA; Verizon Communications 
     Inc., New York, NY; Viiv Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, 
     NC; Visa, Foster City, CA.
       Warby Parker, New York, NY; Warner Music Group, New York, 
     NY; WE Communications, Bellevue, WA; Wellmark Blue Cross Blue 
     Shield, Des Moines, IA; Wells Fargo & Co., San Francisco, CA; 
     Western Digital, San Jose, CA; Whirlpool Corp., Benton 
     Harbor, MI; Williams-Sonoma Inc., San Francisco, CA; Workday 
     Inc., Pleasanton, CA; Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Inc., 
     Parsippany, NJ.
       Xcel Energy Inc., Minneapolis, MN; Xerox Corp., Norwalk, 
     CT; Xperi, San Jose, CA; Xylem Inc., Rye Brook, NY.
       Yelp Inc., San Francisco, CA; Yext Inc., New York, NY.
       Zillow Group, Seattle, WA; Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc., 
     Warsaw, IN.
                                  ____


         Equality Act--Associations Endorsing The Equality Act


                    NATIONAL AND STATE ASSOCIATIONS

       Act--The App Association, AdvaMed, Aerospace Industries 
     Association, American Benefits Council, American Chemistry 
     Council, American Cleaning Institute, American Coatings 
     Association, Inc., American Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     American Pet Products Association, American Petroleum 
     Institute, American Psychological Association, American 
     Medical Association, American Society of Association 
     Executives, Asian American Hotel Owners Association, 
     Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Auto Care 
     Association.
       Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BSA--The Software 
     Alliance, Business Roundtable, College and University 
     Professional Association for Human Resources, Compressed Gas 
     Association, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, 
     Consumer Technology Association, Council for Responsible 
     Nutrition, Edison Electric Institute, Federation of American 
     Hospitals, Financial Executives International, Food Marketing 
     Institute, Fragrance Creators Association, Grocery 
     Manufacturers Association, Household & Commercial Products 
     Association, HR Policy Association.


                         NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

       Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), 
     International Council of Shopping Centers, International 
     Franchise Association, Internet Association, Jackson Area 
     Manufacturers Association, Michigan Manufacturers 
     Association, Missouri Association of Manufacturers, Nareit, 
     National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Association of 
     Realtors, National Investor Relations Institute, National 
     Leased Housing Association, National Multifamily Housing 
     Council, National Restaurant Association, National Retail 
     Federation, National Safety Council, National Venture Capital 
     Association, National Waste & Recycling Association.
       NC Chamber, New Jersey Business & Industry Association, 
     Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Personal Care Products 
     Council, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 
     America, Power Transmission Distributors Association, 
     Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Retail Industry 
     Leaders Association, Rhode Island Manufacturers Association, 
     Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, Society for 
     Human Resource Management, Solar Energy Industries 
     Association, Sports & Fitness Industry Association, The 
     Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, The ERISA 
     Industry Committee, The National Multifamily Housing Council, 
     The Ohio Manufacturers' Association, The Real Estate 
     Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____


       Equality Act--631 Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act

                         National Organizations

       9to5, National Association of Working Women, A Better 
     Balance, A. Philip Randolph Institute, ACRIA, ADAP Advocacy 
     Association, Advocates for Youth, AFGE, AFL-CIO, African 
     American Ministers In Action, The AIDS Institute, AIDS 
     United, Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation, American Academy 
     of Pediatrics, American Association for Access, Equity and 
     Diversity, American Association of University Women (AAUW), 
     American Atheists, American Bar Association, American Civil 
     Liberties Union, American Conference of Cantors, American 
     Counseling Association, American Federation of State, County, 
     and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of 
     Teachers, American Heart Association, American Humanist 
     Association, American Medical Association, American Public 
     Health Association, American Psychological Association, 
     American School Counselor Association, Americans United for 
     Separation of Church and State, amfAR, Foundation for AIDS 
     Research, Anti-Defamation League, Arab American Institute, 
     Ariadne Getty Foundation, Asian Americans Advancing Justice 
      AAJC, Asian American Federation, 
     Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), Association of 
     Flight Attendants--CWA, Association of Welcoming and 
     Affirming Baptists, Athlete Ally, Auburn Seminary, Autistic 
     Self Advocacy Network, Avodah.
       BALM Ministries, Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative, Bend 
     the Arc Jewish Action, Black and Pink, BPFNA--Bautistas por 
     la Paz, Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests.
       Caring Across Generations, Catholics for Choice, Center for 
     American Progress, Center for Black Equity, Center for 
     Disability

[[Page H645]]

     Rights, Center for Inclusivity, Center for Inquiry, Center 
     for LGBTQ and Gender Studies, Centerlink: The Community of 
     LGBT Centers, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Chicago 
     Theological Seminary, Child Welfare League of America, 
     Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Coalition of Black Trade 
     Unionists, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Communications 
     Workers of America, Community Access National Network (CANN), 
     Consortium for Children, Council for Global Equality, 
     Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
       DignityUSA, Disciples Justice Action Network, Disciples 
     LGBTQ+ Alliance, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund 
     (DREDF).
       Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC), End Rape on 
     Campus, The Episcopal Church, Equal Rights Advocates, 
     Equality Federation, Estuary Space, Evangelical Lutheran 
     Church in America.
       Faith in Public Life, Family Equality, Feminist Majority, 
     The Fenway Institute, FORGE, Inc., Forward Together, Freedom 
     Center for Social Justice, Freedom for All Americans, Friends 
     Council on Education.
       Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), Gay Parent Magazine, Gender 
     Spectrum, Generation Progress, Georgetown University Law 
     Center--Civil Rights Clinic, Girls Inc., GLMA: Health 
     Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, Global Justice 
     Institute, Metropolitan Community Churches, GLSEN, Guttmacher 
     Institute.
       Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, 
     Inc., Harm Reduction Coalition, HealthHIV, Hindu American 
     Foundation, Hispanic Federation, Hispanic Health Network, HIV 
     Medicine Association, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights 
     Watch.
       Impact Fund, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's 
     Reproductive Justice Agenda, The Inanna Project, Indivisible, 
     Integrity USA: Episcopal Rainbow, Interfaith Alliance, 
     International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), 
     International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 
     International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), International 
     Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, International 
     Union of Painters and Allied Trades, The International Union, 
     United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America (UAW).
       Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women 
     International, Justice in Aging.
       Keshet.
       Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA), Lake 
     Research Partners, Lambda Legal, Latino Commission on AIDS, 
     LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
     Rights, League of United Latin American Citizens, Lesbian and 
     Gay Veterinary Medical Association (LGVMA), LGBT Technology 
     Partnership & Institute.
       Main Street Alliance, MANA, A National Latina Organization, 
     Many Voices: A Black Church Movement for Gay & Transgender 
     Justice, Matthew Shepard Foundation, MAZON: A Jewish Response 
     to Hunger, Meadville Lombard Theological School, Men of 
     Reform Judaism, MECCA Institute, Methodist Federation for 
     Social Action, Metropolitan Community Churches, Modern 
     Military Association of America, MomsRising, More Light 
     Presbyterians, Movement Advancement Project, Muslim 
     Advocates, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Muslims for 
     Progressive Values.
       NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NARAL Pro-
     Choice America, NASTAD (National Alliance of State & 
     Territorial AIDS Directors), National AIDS Housing Coalition, 
     National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE), National 
     Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Asian Pacific 
     American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Association of 
     Counsel for Children, National Association for Female 
     Executives, National Association of County and City Health 
     Officials, National Association of School Psychologists, 
     National Association of School Superintendents, National 
     Association of Secondary School Principals, National 
     Association of Social Workers, National Black Justice 
     Coalition, National Coalition for the Homeless, National 
     Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender 
     Equality, National Center for Youth Law, National Center on 
     Adoption and Permanency, National Coalition for Asian Pacific 
     American Community Development (National CAPACD), National 
     Coalition for LGBT Health, National Coalition for the 
     Homeless, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, The 
     National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, National 
     Council for Occupational Safety and Health (COSH), National 
     Council of Jewish Women, National Crittenton, National 
     Education Association, National Employment Law Project, 
     National Employment Lawyers Association, National Fair 
     Housing Alliance, National Health Law Program, National 
     Hispanic Media Coalition, National Hispanic Medical 
     Association, National Korean American Service and Education 
     Consortium (NAKASEC), National Latina Institute for 
     Reproductive Health, National Latinx Psychological 
     Association, National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, National 
     LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, The National LGBTQ Workers 
     Center, National Organization for Women, National Partnership 
     for Women & Families, National PTA, National Queer Asian 
     Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), National Taskforce on 
     Tradeswomen Issues, National Trans Bar Association, National 
     Urban League, National Women's Health Network, National 
     Women's Law Center, NEAT--National Equality Action Team, 
     NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Ways Ministry, 
     NMAC, North American Council on Adoptable Children.
       OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates, Office & 
     Professional Employees International Union, Out & Equal 
     Workplace Advocates, OutServe--SLDN, Oxfam America.
       Parity, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, 
     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 
     Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America, Population Connection Action Fund, 
     Positive Women's Network--USA, Pride at Work, Pride Fund 1, 
     Promundo--US, Public Justice.
       Rabbinical Assembly, Reconciling Ministries Network, 
     ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation, 
     Reconstructing Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical 
     Association, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, 
     Religious Institute, RootsAction, Ryan White Medical 
     Providers Coalition.
       SafeBAE, SAGE, Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Secular 
     Coalition for America, Secular Policy Institute, SER Jobs for 
     Progress National Inc., Service Employees International 
     Union, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the 
     U.S. (SIECUS), Slowinski Foundation--story.lgbt, Soulforce, 
     Southern HIV/AIDS Strategy Initiative (SASI), The Stonewall 
     Inn Gives Back Initiative, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools 
     (SSAIS), SurvJustice.
       T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, TransFamily 
     Support Services, Transgender Law Center, Transgender Legal 
     Defense & Education Fund, The TransLatin@ Coalition, 
     Transport Workers Union of America, Treatment Action Group, 
     The Trevor Project, True Colors United, The Tyler Clementi 
     Foundation, The United Methodist Church--General Board of 
     Church and Society.
       UFCW OUTreach, Ultraviolet, UMForward, (un)common good 
     collective, UnidosUS, Union = Fuerza Latinx Institute, Union 
     for Reform Judaism, Union of Affirming Christians, Union 
     Theological Seminary in the City of New York, Unitarian 
     Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalist Women's 
     Federation, UNITE HERE International Union, United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Food and 
     Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), United State 
     of Women, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, URGE: 
     Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity.
       Voice for Adoption, Voices for Progress, Vote Common Good, 
     Greater Things, Voto Latino.
       Whitman-Walker Health, The Williams Institute, Witness to 
     Mass Incarceration, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, 
     and Ritual (WATER).
       Young Feminists & Allies: National Organization for Women's 
     (NOW) Inaugural Virtual Chapter.

                     State and Local Organizations


                                 alaska

       Alaskans Together For Equality
       Identity, Inc.


                                alabama

       AIDS Alabama
       Bayard Rustin Community Center
       Equality Alabama
       Rainbow Mobile


                                arkansas

       Northwest Arkansas Equality, Inc.


                                arizona

       Arizona Coalition to End Sexual & Domestic Violence
       Equality Arizona


                               california

       one-n-ten
       9to5 California
       Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ Community Center
       Bienestar Human Services
       California Employment Lawyers Association
       California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network
       The Center for Sexuality & Gender Diversity
       Common Space
       The Diversity Center of Santa Cruz County
       Diversity Collective Community Resource Center
       Diversity Collective Ventura County
       Equality California
       Family Builders by Adoption
       Gay and Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast
       Girls Inc. of Alameda County
       Girls Inc. of the Central Coast
       Hollywood NOW
       Imperial Valley LGBT Resource Center
       Latino Equality Alliance
       Legal Aid At Work
       LGBT Center OC
       LGBT Community Center of the Desert
       LGBTQ Campus Life (I), California Polytechnic State 
     University
       The LGBTQ Center Long Beach
       LGBTQ+ Center of Riverside County
       The LGBTQ Center of the Desert
       Los Angeles LGBT Center
       Mi Centro LGBTQ Community Center/Latino Eq. Alliance
       Missiongathering Christian Church
       North County LGBTQ Resource Center
       Oakland LGBTQ Community Center
       Pacific Center for Human Growth
       Pacific Pride Foundation
       PFLAG Los Angeles

[[Page H646]]

       The GALA Pride and Diversity Center, San Luis Obispo
       ISM-Q LGBT & Allies Resource Center
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Right--California
       Sacramento LGBT Community Center
       San Bernardino LGBTQ Center
       San Diego LGBT Community Center
       San Gabriel Valley LGBTQ Center
       SF LGBT Center
       Solano Pride Center
       The Source LGBT+ Center
       The Spahr Center
       Stonewall Democratic Club
       TransFamily Support Services
       Uptown Gay and Lesbian Alliance (UG)


                                colorado

       9to5 Colorado
       The Center on Colfax
       Inside/Out Youth Services
       One Colorado
       Out Boulder County
       Queer Asterisk
       Rocky Mountain CES


                              connecticut

       New Haven Pride Center
       Triangle Community Center Inc.
       True Colors, Inc.


                          district of columbia

       Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project
       The DC Center for the LGBT Community
       GLAA
       SMYAL
       Trans-Latinx DMV (DC, Maryland and Virginia)


                                delaware

       CAMP Rehoboth
       Equality Delaware
       Girls Inc. of Delaware


                                florida

       The Alliance for GLBTQ Youth
       ALSO Youth
       The Center Kissimmee
       Compass LGBTQ Community Center
       Equality Florida
       Girls Inc. of Bay County
       Girls Inc. of Sarasota County
       JASMYN
       LGBT+ Center Orlando, Inc.
       LGBT+ Family & Games
       LGBTQ Center of Bay County
       Metro Community Center
       Naples Pride
       The Pride Center at Equality Park
       Pride Community Center of North Central Florida
       Pridelines
       PRISM, Inc.
       QLatinx
       Safe Schools South Florida
       St Pete Pride
       SunServe
       Visuality, Inc.
       Zebra Coalition


                                georgia

       9to5 Georgia
       Atlanta Pride Committee
       Georgia Equality
       Girls Inc. of Columbus and Phenix-Russell
       Lake Oconee Community Church
       Young Democrats of Georgia
       Young Democrats of Georgia LGBTQ
     Caucus


                                  iowa

       Adair Co GLBT Resource Center
       Girls Inc. of Sioux City
       One Iowa


                                 idaho

       All Under One Roof


                                illinois

       AIDS Foundation of Chicago
       Arab American Family Services
       Association of Latinos/as/X Motivating Action
       Bolingbrook Pride
       CAAN Joliet
       Center on Halsted
       Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Chicago 
     Metropolitan Battered Women's Network, Life Span, & 
     Resilience
       Chicago House and Social Service Agency
       Clock, Inc
       Elmhurst Pride Collective
       Equality Illinois
       Howard Brown Health
       Illinois Accountability Initiative
       The Liam Foundation
       Lighthouse Foundation
       Naper Pride Inc.
       PFLAG Rockford
       Phoenix Center
       The Pinta Pride Project
       Pride Action Tank
       Quad Citians Affirming Diversity
       Resilience, formerly Rape Victim Advocates
       United Latinx Pride
       Women Employed


                                indiana

       Girls Inc. of Shelbyville & Shelby County
       Girls Inc. of Wayne County
       Indiana RCRC
       Indiana Youth Group
       Spencer Pride, Inc.
       Spencer Pride CommUnity center


                                kentucky

       Fairness Campaign
       Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       Louisville Youth Group Inc.
       Pride Community Services Organization


                               louisiana

       Forum for Equality
       Louisiana Progress Action
       Louisiana Trans Advocates


                             massachusetts

       BAGLY, Inc. (Boston Alliance of LGBTQ Youth)
       Girls Inc. of Greater Lowell
       Girls Inc. of the Valley
       Girls Inc. of Worcester
       JALSA
       Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition
       MassEquality
       NAGLY (North Shore Alliance of GLBTQ Youth)
       OUT MetroWest


                                maryland

       The Frederick Center
       FreeState Justice
       Gender Rights Maryland
       Girls Inc. of Washington County
       The Montgomery County LGBT Business Council
       Pride Center of Maryland
       Public Justice Center
       Ricky's Pride


                                 maine

       EqualityMaine


                                michigan

       Affirmations LGBTQ+ Community Center
       Equality Michigan
       Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce
       Great Lakes Bay Pride
       Jackson Pride Center
       LGBT Detroit
       OutCenter of Southwest Michigan
       OutFront Kalamazoo
       Polestar LGBT Community Center of Traverse City
       Ruth Ellis Center, Inc.
       SAGE Metro Detroit
       Stand with Trans
       Transgender Michigan


                               minnesota

       Gender Justice
       OutFront MN


                                missouri

       The GLO Center
       Mid-Missouri Center Project, Inc.
       PROMO
       St. Louis Effort for AIDS


                                montana

       Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
       Montana Gay Men's Task Force
       Montana Two Spirit Society
       Western Monta LGBTQ Community Center


                             north carolina

       Blue Ridge Pride Center, Inc.
       Charlotte Clergy Coalition for Justice
       Equality North Carolina
       Guilford Green Foundation & LGBTQ Center
       Latinos in the Deep South
       LGBT Center of Raleigh
       National Organization for Women Charlotte chapter
       Northstar LGBTQ Community Center
       Onslow County LGBTQ+ Community Center
       Time Out Youth
       Youth OUTright WNC, Inc.


                              north dakota

       North Dakota Human Rights Coalition


                                nebraska

       OutNebraska


                                 nevada

       Colors+


                             new hampshire

       New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual 
     Violence
       Seacoast Outright (NH/ME)


                               new jersey

       Garden State Equality
       Hudson Pride Center
       Ours Institute--Pride Institute of Southern New Jersey
       Pride Center of New Jersey


                               new mexico

       Equality New Mexico
       Girls Inc. of Santa Fe
       Human Rights Alliance
       KWH Law Center for Social Justice & Change
       Southwest Women's Law Center
       Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico
       Tewa Women United


                                new york

       Asian American Federation
       Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (AA) of UAW 2325,
       LGBTQ+ Caucus
       Brooklyn Community Pride Center
       Callen-Lorde Community Health Center
       CANDLE
       Destination Tomorrow: The Bronx LGBT Center
       Empire State Pride Agenda
       Equality New York
       Fairness Alliance and Information Resources of New York 
     Inc.
       Family Counseling Services of the Finger Lakes, Inc.
       Forefront Church NYC
       Gay & Lesbian Independent Democrats (GLID)
       Gender Equality Law Center
       Hudson Valley LGBTQ Community Center
       In Our Own Voices
       The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Cty Center
       LGBT Bar Association of New York
       LGBT Network/Long Island LGBT Community Center
       LGBT Network/Queens LGBT Community Center
       The LGBTQ Center of the Finger Lakes

[[Page H647]]

       The LOFT LGBTQ+ Community Center
       MinKwon Center for Community Action
       Out Alliance
       Pride Center of Staten Island
       Pride Center of the Capital Region
       Pride Center of Western New York
       Rockland County Pride Center
       Sakhi for South Asian Women
       Theatre of the Oppressed NYC
       VillageCare
       The Volunteer Lawyers Project of Onondaga County, Inc.


                                 nevada

       Colors+
       Equality Nevada
       The Gay & Lesbian Community Center of So. Nevada
       Henderson Equality Center
       The LGBTQ Community Center of Southern Nevada
       OUR Center
       Silver State Equality--Nevada


                                  ohio

       Equality Ohio
       Greater Dayton LGBT Center
       Latitude, a community center by Harvey House
       LGBT Center at Ohio University
       LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland
       Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       Stonewall Columbus
       TransOhio
       Dennis R. Neill Equality Center


                                oklahoma

       Freedom Oklahoma
       Oklahomans for Equality


                                 oregon

       Basic Rights Oregon
       Cascade AIDS Project
       Christ Church: Portland
       Equality Community Center
       Girls Inc. of the Pacific Northwest
       Lower Columbia Q Center
       Oregon Abuse Advocat Survivors in Service


                              pennsylvania

       Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center
       Eastern PA Trans Equity Project
       Greater Erie Alliance for Equality, Inc
       Hugh Lane Wellness Foundation
       LGBT Center of Central PA
       LGBT Center of Greater Reading
       LGBT Equality Alliance of Chester County
       Mazzoni Center
       The Montgomery County LGBT Business Council
       Ni-ta-nee NOW (Centre County, PA)
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice
       Persad Center
       PFLAG York
       PGH Equality Center
       Philadelphia Family Pride
       Proud Haven
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice
       Rainbow Rose Center, York County LGBTQ+ Resource Center
       SAGA Community Center
       TriVersity--The UDGLBT Center
       Washington County Gay Straight Alliance, Inc.
       William Way LGBT Community Center
       Women's Law Project
       New Voices for Reproductive Justice


                              puerto rico

       Waves Ahead & SAGE Puerto Rico
       Waves Ahead Corp Puerto Rico


                              rhode island

       Adoption Rhode Island


                             south carolina

       Pride Link
       Uplift Outreach Center
       Women's Rights and Empowerment Network (WREN)


                              south dakota

       Equality South Dakota


                               tennessee

       Girls Inc. of TN Valley
       OUTMemphis
       Tennessee Equality Project


                                 texas

       ADL Southwest Region
       The Afiya Center
       American Association of University Women Texas (AAUW Texas)
       Cathedral of Hope United Church of Christ
       Equality Texas
       Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
       the Montrose Center
       Open Arms Rape Crisis Center & LGBT+ Services
       Pride Center San Antonio
       Pride Center West Texas
       Pride Community Center
       QWELL Community Foundation
       Resource Center
       Texas Freedom Network
       Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT)


                                  utah

       Equality Utah
       Utah Pride Center


                                virginia

       Diversity Richmond
       Equality Virginia
       LGBT Life Center
       Lynchburg Diversity Center
       NAKASEC Virginia
       Side by Side
       Shenandoah LGBTQ Center


                                vermont

       Pride Center Vermont
       Outright Vermont


                               washington

       Entre Hermanos
       Equal Rights Washington
       Gay City: Seattle's LGBTQ Center
       Gender Justice League
       Legal Voice
       Oasis Youth Center
       Rainbow Center


                               wisconsin

       9to5 Wisconsin
       AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin
       The Center: 7 Rivers LGBTQ Connection
       Fair Wisconsin
       LGBT Center of SE Wisconsin
       OutReach LGBT Community Center
       The MKE LGBT Community Center
       Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault


                             west virginia

       Ohio Valley Pride Community Center
                                  ____


                           Faith for Equality


       100+ Faith-Based Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act

       1. African American Ministers in Action
       2. Alliance of Baptists
       3. American Conference of Cantors
       4. Anti-Defamation League
       5. Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
       6. Auburn Seminary
       7. Avodah
       8. BALM Ministries
       9. Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative
       10. Bend the Arc Jewish Action
       11. Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests
       12. Carolina Jews for Justice
       13. Cathedral of Hope United Church of Christ
       14. Catholics for Choice
       15. Central Conference of American Rabbis
       16. Charlotte Clergy Coalition for Justice
       17. Chicago Theological Seminary
       18. Christ Church: Portland
       19. Covenant Network of Presbyterians
       20. Crosswalk Community Church
       21. DignityUSA
       22. Disciples Justice Action Network
       23. Disciples LGBTQ+ Alliance
       24. Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation
       25. Estuary Space
       26. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
       27. Faith in Public Life
       28. Faithful America
       29. First Baptist Church of Madison, WI
       30. Forefront Church NYC
       31. Freedom Center for Social Justice
       32. Friends Council on Education
       33. Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community 
     Churches
       34. Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, 
     Inc.
       35. Hindu American Foundation
       36. IGNITE MVMT
       37. Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       38. Integrity USA: Episcopal Rainbow
       39. Interfaith Alliance
       40. Interfaith Alliance of Colorado
       41. Iowa Unitarian Universalist Witness and Advocacy 
     Network
       42. Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)
       43. Jewish Women International
       44. JUUstice Washington
       45. Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       46. Keshet
       47. Lake Oconee Community Church
       48. Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church of Oakland, CA
       49. Many Voices: A Black Church Movement for Gay & 
     Transgender Justice
       50. MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
       51. Meadville Lombard Theological School
       52. MECCA Institute
       53. Missiongathering Christian Church
       54. Men of Reform Judaism
       55. Methodist Federation for Social Action
       56. Metropolitan Community Churches
       57. Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network 
     (MUUSJN)
       58. More Light Presbyterians
       59. Muslim Advocates
       60. Muslim Public Affairs Council
       61. Muslims for Progressive Values
       62. National Council of Jewish Women
       63. NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
       64. New Hope Unitarian Universalist Congregation
       65. New Ways Ministry
       66. Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       67. Parity
       68. Pennsylvania Religious Coalition for Reproductive 
     Justice
       69. Rabbinical Assembly
       70. Reconciling Ministries Network
       71. ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation
       72. Reconstructing Judaism
       73. Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
       74. Red Letter Christians
       75. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       76. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights of 
     California
       77. Religious Institute
       78. Soulforce
       79. Starr King School for the Ministry
       80. T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
       81. The Episcopal Church
       82. The Freedom Center for Social Justice

[[Page H648]]

  

       83. The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church 
     and Society
       84. UMForward
       85. Union for Reform Judaism
       86. Union of Affirming Christians
       87. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York
       88. Unitarian Universalist Action New Hampshire
       89. Unitarian Universalist Advocacy Network of Illinois
       90. Unitarian Universalist Association
       91. Unitarian Universalist Justice Arizona
       92. Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio
       93. Unitarian Universalist Massachusetts State Action 
     Network
       94. Unitarian Universalist Justice Ministry of North 
     Carolina
       95. Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice
       96. Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation
       97. United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
       98. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
       99. UU FaithAction NJ
       100. Women of Reform Judaism
       101. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual 
     (WATER)
                                  ____

                                                  National Council


                                              of Jewish Women,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2021.
       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the 180,000 
     volunteers and advocates of the National Council of Jewish 
     Women (NCJW) to urge you to vote for HR 5, the Equality Act. 
     NCJW believes in kavod habriyot, individual dignity. To that 
     end, we are committed to the enactment, enforcement, and 
     preservation of laws and regulations that protect civil 
     rights and individual liberties for all.
       The Equality Act, which passed the House of Representatives 
     in the last Congress, would add explicit protections against 
     discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender 
     identity to our civil rights laws. The bill would also add 
     and expand legal protections for women, people of color, and 
     many other communities. Congress must pass the Equality Act 
     to protect all individuals from discrimination regardless of 
     sexual orientation and gender identity.
       A majority of LGBTQ people have experienced harassment or 
     discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender 
     identity. A 2020 study by the University of Chicago found 
     that one in three LGBTQ Americans faced identity-based 
     discrimination of some kind in the past year, with that 
     number increasing to three in five for transgender people. 
     Discrimination happens in the spheres of employment, 
     education, housing, public accommodations, and health care--
     every part of a person's life. LGBTQ people of color, 
     immigrants, legal minors, and those with disabilities face 
     even more barriers and biases.
       NCJW supports the Equality Act not in spite of our 
     religious beliefs, but because of them. We believe in the 
     inherent dignity and worth of all people, including 
     religiously and non-religiously affiliated people. Civil 
     rights protections go hand in hand with religious freedom, 
     and the bill does not require any person to change their 
     religious beliefs nor does it compel religious institutions 
     to participate in activities that violate the tenets of their 
     faith.
       All people deserve to live free from discrimination and 
     fear regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, and gender 
     identity. I urge you to vote for final passage of the 
     Equality Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jody Rabhan,

                                             Chief Policy Officer,
     National Council of Jewish Women.
                                  ____

                                                February 24, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: The undersigned 
     trade and professional associations write in support of H.R. 
     5, the Equality Act. Equality of opportunity is a key pillar 
     of our great democracy--one that allows all people to pursue 
     their American Dream--and part of what makes our nation 
     exceptional. Our industries, representing and employing tens 
     of millions of Americans, understand this basic fact and have 
     been at the forefront of efforts to combat discrimination 
     based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the 
     workplace.
       H.R. 5 would amend several provisions of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 to provide affirmative, statutory non-
     discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans both in the 
     workplace and in the community. These protections remain 
     vitally important even after the Supreme Court's decision in 
     Bostock v. Clayton County. Only legislative action can 
     forestall endless litigation, alleviate the untenable 
     patchwork of state laws governing this form of 
     discrimination, and make clear that discrimination because of 
     sexual orientation or gender identity is unwelcome and 
     unlawful in our society.
       In 2019, the Equality Act was introduced on a bipartisan 
     basis in both the House and Senate, and it passed the House 
     with a bipartisan majority. We urge you again to support the 
     passage of H.R. 5.
           Sincerely,
       Accessories Council, AAHOAAsian American Hotel Owners 
     Association, ACTThe App Association, AdvaMed, Aerospace 
     Industries Association, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 
     American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), American 
     Benefits Council, American Chemistry Council, American 
     Cleaning Institute.
       American Herbal Products Association, American Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, American Medical Association, American 
     Retirement Association, American Society of Association 
     Executives, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 
     Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BSAThe Software 
     Alliance, College and University Professional Association for 
     Human Resources.
       Consumer Brands Association, Consumer Healthcare Products 
     Association (CHPA), Consumer Technology Association, Council 
     of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), Edison Electric 
     Institute, Financial Executives International, FMIThe Food 
     Industry Association, Fragrance Creators, Household & 
     Commercial Products Association, Information Technology 
     Industry Council (ITI).
       International Franchise Association, Internet Association, 
     Nareit, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Investor Relations 
     Institute (NIRI), National Leased Housing Association (NLHA), 
     National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), National 
     Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation.
       National Safety Council, National Venture Capital 
     Association (NVCA), North American Association of Uniform 
     Manufacturers and Distributors, Personal Care Products 
     Council, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 
     America, Retail Industry Leaders Association, The Center for 
     Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, The Latino Coalition, The 
     Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Tire 
     Manufacturers Association.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
  Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Equality 
Act.
  In the fight for LGBTQ-plus equality, we have made significant 
progress. From Stonewall to the Supreme Court, there is no doubt we 
have come a long way, but the unfortunate truth is that in far too many 
places discrimination is still permitted under the law. In public 
facilities, in education institutions, when applying for jobs, when 
trying to rent or buy a home, discrimination is still permitted under 
the law.
  Many States right now are actively trying to turn back progress or 
write discriminatory practices into their own laws, especially against 
our transgender citizens. We can and must do better.
  In Arizona, in any place in America, everyone deserves equal 
treatment under the law, no matter who they are, who they love, or how 
they express themselves.
  I fervently support the Equality Act because we are a Nation that 
believes all are created equal and that this truth is self-evident. 
Everyone deserves to be seen, to feel heard, to be welcomed and 
protected.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I was thinking 
about my kids as I walked onto the floor today, and I have just one 
question to those who today, with their votes, would seek to perpetuate 
legal discrimination against millions of American families, including 
mine.
  Why are they afraid to just say what they really believe? Why hide 
behind the ridiculous, embarrassing, easily debunked arguments, 
falsehoods, fearmongering about locker rooms and women's sports and 
religious practices that will never be harmed? Why not just say what 
they really mean?
  I tell you what, Madam Speaker, I will say it for them. Their real 
argument, the only honest argument, is that they believe LGBT people 
are morally inferior and that firing us should be permitted. They argue 
the longstanding protections we already provide in the civil rights 
laws for religious practice for some reason aren't good enough. Here 
they demand more capacity to hate on gay people than they would ever 
claim as a religious right to discriminate on the basis of race.
  Would any opponent of this bill argue that their religion gives them 
the right to deny an African-American couple service at a restaurant? 
That is exactly the argument made on this floor 60 years ago when 
others, making so-called faith-based arguments, sought to defeat the 
civil rights laws in the first place.

[[Page H649]]

  The true argument is that their beliefs demand existing 
discrimination against LGBT people be allowed. That is their true 
argument. That is pro-discrimination.
  Our argument is that discrimination is wrong and that it should not 
be permitted, and that the exercise of religion here can be protected 
just as we do in every other civil rights context--no more, no less.
  It is no wonder, but it is sad, that they deny the truth of their 
position here. These same Members spread the incendiary lie that the 
election was stolen and play footsie with dangerous conspiracy groups 
who attacked this building. They tell us mask-wearing infringes on 
their rights despite a public health emergency.
  They deny school shootings are real or that a plane hit the Pentagon. 
Let history record the vote today. One side votes for love.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I will read from the bill, page 25 of 
their legislation.
  The previous speaker, Madam Speaker, is just flat-out wrong. Here is 
what it says: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act shall not--shall 
not--provide a claim or a defense to a claim under the legislation or 
provide a basis for challenging the application of this bill.
  They put it in the bill. You can't use the standards set forth in 
RFRA that was passed. You can't even use that as a defense. It is 
spelled out in the legislation.
  As my colleague from Louisiana said, the very first right mentioned 
in the very first amendment to the Constitution, in the very first 
amendment of the Bill of Rights, is your right to practice your faith 
the way you see fit. And they put in their legislation: No, you can't. 
No, you can't.
  That is what is in the bill. That is why they didn't want a hearing, 
as previous speakers said, because they didn't want us to be able to 
talk about this in a hearing where you have testimony, witnesses. They 
didn't want that.
  They come to the floor, and as my colleague from Texas said, give 
this a fancy name while they are taking away American citizens' most 
fundamental liberty, the liberty the Founders chose to mention the very 
first right in the Bill of Rights.
  That is why we oppose this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
  Despite its name, this bill is not about equality. It does attack 
religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and 
all the important rights recognized in the First Amendment. This bill 
is about forcing the ideas and beliefs of the far left on all 
Americans. It is about government control over every aspect of your 
life. It is a remnant from the scrap heap of failed legislation from 
yesteryear.
  I believe that all Americans should be treated equally and respected, 
but this bill does not do that.
  There are lots of concerns to have with this bill, but today, I am 
going to just highlight two.
  First, this bill will have a serious and deadly consequence for 
unborn children. It expands abortion and undoes current Federal law 
that prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It does so by 
adding to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical 
condition,'' which has been recognized by courts and the EEOC to mean 
abortion, to the definition of sex.
  I am reminded of when I used to work at the United Nations and would 
attend conferences throughout the world. The code language in the 
United Nations documents, in international law, was enforced pregnancy. 
That meant abortion. That meant you could not proscribe abortion. This 
bill takes that same tack.
  This bill also states that pregnancy, childbirth, or a related 
medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other 
physical conditions. That is that same tack that is in international 
documents. This means that abortion cannot be treated differently than 
other medical conditions, and therefore abortion will be protected by 
our civil rights laws. That is not about equality; that is about 
expanding abortion.
  Secondly, this bill will negatively impact all Americans whose 
religious beliefs influence their actions. This bill makes crystal 
clear that an individual's religious beliefs do not matter, as my 
colleague from Ohio just referred to. This bill specifically prevents 
Americans from relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which 
was a bipartisan bill in 1993 signed by President Clinton.
  This bill says specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 
1993 shall not provide a claim concerning or defense to a claim under a 
covered title or provide a basis for challenging the application or 
enforcement of a covered title.
  How can you say with a straight face that this bill does not impede 
or stomp on someone's right of conscience or right of religious 
worship? It is set forth. It is specific. Who can deny that?
  This bill, if enacted, will mean that Americans will not be able to 
act in accordance with their religious beliefs. They will be forced to 
set their religious beliefs aside or face consequences. This is 
unacceptable. This is un-American.
  For these and many other reasons, I oppose this bill and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have spent this debate lecturing us about foundational 
principles in this country. The foundational document of this great 
Republic is the Declaration of Independence, with the words: ``We hold 
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.''
  Those words were eloquent in their articulation and complete in their 
application. It did not apply to African Americans; it did not apply to 
women; it did not apply to Native Americans; and it certainly did not 
apply to members of the LGBTQ community.
  Now, we have come a long way in America, but we still have a long way 
to go. The progress has been made, as the great Barbara Jordan once 
indicated, through a process of amendment and ratification and court 
decision and legislation. That is what we are doing today.
  If you believe in liberty and justice for all, support the Equality 
Act. If you believe in equal protection under the law, support the 
Equality Act. If you believe truly, as my religion teaches me, that we 
are all God's children, support the Equality Act.
  Love does not discriminate; neither should the law.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Equality Act.
  I am the proud mom of a trans kid. I will fight every single day for 
every trans person, every LGBTQ person, including my kid, to explore 
and express the fullness of their gender without fear or risk of being 
fired, denied housing, or refused service because of their sexual 
orientation or gender identity.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2020, over one in three LGBTQ Americans faced 
discrimination, including over three in five transgender Americans. In 
the midst of a pandemic, nearly 3 in 10 LGBTQ Americans faced 
difficulties accessing medical care, including over half of transgender 
Americans.
  The Equality Act guarantees protection under the law, no matter who 
you love or your gender identity. It was President Abraham Lincoln who 
said those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves.
  So today, as we pass the Equality Act, we vote ``aye'' for Janak, for 
Evie, for so many thousands more of our kids.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. We say to every LGBTQ person: We see you. We hear you.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, and I thank 
Representative

[[Page H650]]

  David Cicilline for his tireless leadership in leading us to this 
day. All Americans deserve to be treated equally regardless of their 
gender identity or sexual orientation.
  I do have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are those on the other side 
who are arguing against this wise legislation afraid of? Equal 
treatment for their LGBTQ family and friends? Why would they make such 
arguments?
  We must continue to strive for the equality of the LGBTQ community. 
Voting ``yes'' on the Equality Act furthers this fight and helps us 
live up to the promise of this Nation. As Bayard Rustin, an openly gay 
Black civil rights leader, said: ``Let us be enraged about injustice, 
but let us not be destroyed by it.''
  The Equality Act is a necessary step in addressing injustice by 
advancing the rights of Americans nationwide because we are all God's 
children. The passage of this legislation is an important step in 
forming a more perfect Union.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), and I ask unanimous consent 
that she may control that balance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York). Is 
there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, for years we have been hearing what we are 
hearing today: Look, we just want the same rights everybody else has. 
But we also heard for years: We just want to live and let live.
  I have got news for all of my friends across the aisle that don't 
know. There is a right to the marriage you are claiming you need this 
bill for that the Supreme Court has already said you have. It is there.
  So what this bill, the so-called Equality Act, is really about, it is 
not about giving rights. This is about taking away rights. You have the 
rights. But this is saying that part of the First Amendment, ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' that has to go.

                              {time}  1415

  And just like my friend read from page 25, the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act of 1993, that has got to go. You can no longer--after 
this bill, you can no longer use that as a defense when we sue your 
church, we sue your preacher. Male or female, it doesn't matter. We are 
coming after you. If we sue a Rabbi, you can't hide behind the First 
Amendment or this Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  It won't help you because we are saying you don't have those rights 
the Constitution gave you. That is all RFRA was to begin with. It was 
just codifying what was in the Constitution.
  I thought so much about my dear friend, the late Bishop Harry 
Jackson. He and I had stood inside this Capitol together for years 
trying to protect Christian rights. I miss Harry and I think about him 
a lot.
  And let me say, not as articulately, but for heaven's sake, you have 
got these rights. Allow people who believe what Moses said when he 
said: A man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leave her home, 
the two will become one flesh.
  Let them be able to practice the teaching of Moses. When Jesus was 
asked about marriage, he said--he quoted Moses verbatim. Please allow 
Christians who believe what Jesus said to practice that.
  Allow preachers who took oaths to practice it. Allow them to do that. 
Don't take away the rights the Constitution gave, and don't take away 
decades of rights that women have worked for and earned and just give 
it away to men.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for America when we are 
advancing the civil rights of all Americans, and that is what the 
Equality Act does.
  All of the free exercise constitutional arguments being advanced 
today-- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Will the 
gentleman please put his mask on.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, all of the constitutional arguments being 
advanced today by our colleagues have been decisively repudiated and 
rejected by their hero, Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1990 decision 
Employment Division v. Smith, where Justice Scalia, for the Court, 
emphasized that there is no religious free exercise exemption from 
secular laws of universal application, including civil rights laws, 
including child labor laws, including child abuse laws. And every 
scoundrel in American history has tried to dress up his or her 
opposition to other people's civil rights in religious garb.
  We saw that in 1964, in the Heart of Atlanta Motel case and in the 
Ollie's Barbecue case, where motel owners, hotel owners, lunch counter 
owners came in and said: We have a religious free exercise right not to 
serve interracial groups or interracial couples. We don't want to allow 
an interracial couple--you get where I am going.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Equality Act.
  The issues discussed as part of the Equality Act are important. 
Amending the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation would be a 
historic step. Unfortunately, without explicit religious exemptions, 
there are many questions that will arise.
  Title II of the Civil Rights Act currently prohibits discrimination 
in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, 
religion, or national origin.
  The Equality Act would dramatically expand the definition of public 
accommodation to include any place of public gathering or any 
establishment that provides a service, such as food banks or homeless 
shelters.
  Every religion and faith in America has had its own set of beliefs. 
Some of these, including Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions, are 
thousands of years old and answer to a much higher power.
  My personal faith, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, teaches me that every individual is a child of God 
and deserves to be treated with love and respect.
  My religion also teaches that marriage is sacred and eternal in 
nature. The marriage ceremonies conducted in the sacred places of my 
faith are conducted in temples that must not be deemed places of public 
accommodation.
  If houses of worship are defined as places of public accommodation, a 
number of problems arise, many having nothing to do with LGBT rights.
  For example, could an orthodox Jewish synagogue decline to permit an 
interfaith couple from having their wedding ceremony in the synagogue?
  Could a traditional mosque conduct gender-segregated classes for 
youth programs?
  Could a Catholic church's homeless shelter have separate housing for 
men and women?
  Could BYU or other church-owned universities continue hiring those 
individuals who follow its standards?
  Democrats claim the purpose of introducing the Equality Act is not to 
impede religious freedom. In fact, Democrats claim that the existing 
laws are enough to protect religious freedom.
  But why, then, leave these crucial matters unclear and threaten 
people of faith?
  Why not accept an amendment to the Equality Act that clearly exempts 
religious organizations?
  Why remove the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
  The First Amendment right to practice our faith is at the core of our 
Nation's culture. Our moral compass of service, tolerance, kindness, 
and charity stems from our Judeo-Christian foundation. No law should 
take us down the slippery slope of forgetting this legacy, regardless 
of its title.
  When Congress wants to protect religious expressions, it knows how to 
do so. The last major civil rights law enacted by Congress was the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. It contains a clear and explicit 
religious exemption.

  Why not make the law clear to promote civil rights and religious 
liberty?

[[Page H651]]

  That would be the historic and unifying thing to do.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that this Chamber does 
remarkable things. Today, we pass the Equality Act, which includes my 
bill, the Juror Non-Discrimination Act.
  This has been a long time coming and it represents progress that, for 
me, was unbelievable when I was growing up. You see, to grow up poor, 
Black, and gay is to not see yourself anywhere. It is also to feel 
completely unseen, as so many people around you invalidate your very 
existence. Growing up, I watched helplessly as opportunistic, straight 
politicians--mostly White, mostly male--used my basic human rights as a 
political football to further their careers.
  Had this legislation been enacted when I was growing up, it would 
have been direct evidence of the fact that things really do get better, 
that I didn't have to hide or cry so much.
  Thankfully, since childhood, things have gotten better, but that 
hasn't been because of the mere passage of time. It has been because 
LGBTQ advocates made life better.
  Today, we send a powerful message to millions of LGBTQ people around 
the country and, indeed, around the world that they are seen, that they 
are valued, that their lives are worthy of being protected.
  How remarkable that is, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that a few speakers 
ago, the gentleman from Maryland used the term ``religious garb.''
  A physician's conscience, a physician's faith, which compels him or 
her not to take the life of an unborn child is not religious garb. That 
is a deeply held position of conscience and position of faith.
  Mr. Speaker, to have a Member from the other side raise that argument 
when we have specifically pointed to the First Amendment, pointed to 
page 25 of the bill, which says ``the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
will not apply,'' is ridiculous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding, 
and I completely agree with him on his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, yet another harmful bill 
that has been rushed to the House floor without thorough bipartisan 
consideration. It claims to strive for equality, but, in practice, this 
bill undermines the constitutional religious freedoms guaranteed to all 
Americans.
  Once again, abandoning long-established House procedures, Democrats 
are pushing a conveniently titled bill without convening one hearing or 
markup during the 117th Congress to consider its vast implications for 
educational institutions and employers.
  This legislation would require our Nation's K-12 schools to treat 
gender as being fluid, subjective, and not tied to biological reality.
  H.R. 5 also threatens religious freedom protections for all Americans 
and Federal funding for religiously affiliated colleges and 
universities.
  Under this bill, student codes of conduct, hiring practices, and 
housing rules that reflect sincerely held beliefs about marriage and 
sexuality would be deemed discriminatory, eroding First Amendment 
rights.
  In addition, the definitions in this bill are vague and would subject 
employers and other covered organizations to increase litigation risks.
  The bill also fails to advocate for the unborn, which is why I urge 
support for my amendment that will protect anyone, including 
religiously affiliated groups and individuals, from being forced to 
perform abortions.
  Masquerading as a proposal to guarantee fundamental civil rights to 
all Americans, H.R. 5 is nothing more than a partisan ploy to destroy 
religious liberty and educational opportunities for girls. Shameful 
doesn't even begin to describe this bill.
  This is no way to legislate, but for House Democrats, silencing the 
voices of the minority and millions of hardworking Americans is 
business as usual.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. Bush).
  Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, St. Louis and I rise today in support of the 
Equality Act because all people deserve to live safely and freely.
  When we say that Black lives matter, we mean that every Black life 
matters; that Black trans lives matter; that Nina Pop's life mattered.
  When we protect the lives of our trans family, our unhoused 
neighbors, our sex workers, our youth, we build a country where 
everyone can thrive, not just survive.
  For so many in St. Louis, this bill will be the difference between 
life and death. Missouri has not only stalled justice, but actively 
denied justice for our LGBTQIA-plus community. This legislation will 
mean the difference between having a safe place to call home and being 
unhoused because, to date, in the year 2021, that kind of 
discrimination still exists.
  We rise to tell our LGBTQIA community: Not only do you matter, but 
you are loved and you are cared for, and we got your back.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and Representative Cicilline for 
their work on this.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Craig).
  Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to the 
Equality Act, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will grant 
equal protection under the law to our LGBTQ friends, family, neighbors, 
as well as to me and my family.
  As the first openly lesbian wife and mother in Congress and the first 
LGBTQ Member of Congress from the great State of Minnesota, I know this 
legislation is the culmination of a lifetime of work for so many.
  My wife, Cheryl, and I have built a beautiful life together raising 
four sons who we dearly love. We are fortunate to live in Minnesota, in 
a State where many of the Equality Act's protections have already been 
enshrined into law.
  Right now, there are States across this country where it would be 
entirely legal for Cheryl and I to be discriminated against--based on 
our love and commitment to one another--in housing, employment, access 
to credit, or any other number of areas essential to just living our 
lives.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, some of my colleagues seem to believe this legislation somehow 
could harm our non-LGBTQ women and girls, but that couldn't be further 
from the truth.
  The Equality Act does not undermine the achievements or aspirations 
of non-LGBTQ. In fact, by amending the Civil Rights Act to prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of sex in a broad area of life, we are 
fighting to ensure that all women are treated equally in all aspects of 
their lives.
  The Equality Act is critical because when LGBTQ people have equality 
under the law, we all benefit and all of our communities are stronger.
  Mr. Speaker, as a teenage girl growing up in rural America, I never 
could have imagined I would finally see this legislation come to the 
House floor, much less as a Member of this body to see it passed. This 
legislation is necessary, it is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Equality 
Act. This landmark legislation will bring our Nation closer to the 
promise of its founding and will change the lives of generations of 
LGBTQ Americans for the better. This should be one of the easiest and 
most-affirming votes we ever take. Equality is, after all, a self-
evident truth. It is part of the bedrock of this Nation.
  Throughout our history, the march toward full equality has brought 
more Americans of diverse backgrounds into the heart and soul of this 
country. Today's vote is another important milestone along that path.
  Americans in 29 States can be denied housing, education, credit, or 
other services, simply because of who they are. That this can happen in 
our country in 2021 is a grave injustice that

[[Page H652]]

must be corrected with this vote. And by passing this bill, we can also 
send an unequivocal message to every LGBTQ American and their families: 
``You matter. You have dignity. Your country sees you and has your 
back.''
  Growing up in New Hampshire, I never thought I could live as my 
authentic self. Thankfully, I have a loving family and a welcoming 
community who embraced me as a young person, and I am fortunate to live 
in a State that has already added sexual orientation and gender 
identity to its civil rights statutes.
  But too many other LGBTQ Americans live in fear of sharing their 
truth, and millions live in fear that the law won't protect them from 
discrimination when they need it.
  Look, we are not asking for anything any other American doesn't 
already enjoy. We just want to be treated the same. We just want 
politicians in Washington to catch up with the times and the 
Constitution. No one deserves to be treated as a second-class citizen 
in this country just for being themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass the Equality Act. Let's achieve full equality 
under the law, and let's pass this bill with a strong, affirming vote 
today.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this law could not be plainer. It says 
gender is not a question of genetics, but of personal choice. And 
leftist dogma now calls for this doctrine to be imposed under force of 
law, and the effect is frightening.
  States that have adopted similar laws have threatened safe spaces for 
women and intimidated the free exercise of conscience. But let me focus 
on just two aspects: How this destroys women's sports and renders 
parents powerless to protect their own children.
  Selina Soule, a teenager, worked her heart out and qualified for the 
Connecticut State championship track meet a few years ago. This is her 
experience:
  She said, ``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. . . .
  ``This policy will take away our medals, records, scholarships and 
dreams.''
  An anguished mother named Elaine, told her story: She said, ``Let me 
explain to you how this works. . . . 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. . . .
  ``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.''
  America, wake up. This is the brave, new world that House Democrats 
propose under the name ``equality.'' The parents of every daughter, who 
has ever poured their hearts into a sport should be outraged that their 
daughter's dreams and hopes no longer matter to their own 
Representative.
  Every parent who would give their life to protect their child should 
be livid that this bill is about to replace them with bureaucrats who 
can administer puberty-blocking drugs on their child's say-so.
  And every American should be scared as hell to realize the 
ideological extremism that is now running rampant behind the razor-
wired militarized U.S. Capitol. It is hard to believe that we once 
called it ``the people's House.''
  Let this be a wake-up call to every voter. If you elect enough 
radicals to the Congress, you will get a radical Congress.

  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, now I had a different speech I was going to 
give today about the Equality Act. As an openly gay Member of Congress, 
married to my husband, Phil, for 14 years, I was going to talk about 
the need for equal treatment under the law for everyone, regardless of 
who they love. Human kindness, respect for others--pretty basic stuff. 
But the new QAnon vibe in this body has gone too far.
  For many in this Chamber, this isn't a debate about whether or not 
you should be legally discriminated against for who you love. You won't 
hear that debate because they can't win on hate alone. The public 
doesn't agree with them.
  So instead, some are debating that this bill discriminates based on 
religion, which it doesn't, because it treats everyone the same under 
the law.
  And some are debating an even sillier notion: That somehow a man will 
pretend to be a woman to win in women's sports--a crazy, made-up 
fantasy notion.
  This new QAnon spirit across the aisle is also occurring in a nasty 
and hateful way. A lead GOP opponent of this bill actually posted an 
anti-trans poster on the wall outside her office directly and 
intentionally across from a Democratic Member of Congress with a trans 
daughter. Wow. That is classy.
  Mr. Speaker, really, is that where we are here today? Who can out-
crazy, out-tastelessly act to prove to the base that they will say or 
do anything to score points and show how inconsiderate they can be to a 
colleague to just get social media clickbait?
  Here are the facts: One in four transgender people have lost a job 
due to discrimination, and dozens of transgender and gender-
nonconforming people were violently killed last year. And LGBTQ youth 
are almost 5 times as likely to have attempted suicide compared to 
heterosexual youth due to discrimination. It is past time we put an end 
to this. A vote against the Equality Act is a vote for discrimination, 
plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't Iran or Somalia or Russia. This is America. 
Show human dignity for others by offering equal treatment under the 
law. That is the Equality Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join our entire caucus in saluting Congressman 
  David Cicilline, our longtime champion of the Equality Act, who has 
been courageous, relentless, and persistent in his leadership for this 
legislation.
  We are proud to bring this important legislation to the House floor 
under the leadership of the most diverse House Democratic majority--
nearly 70 percent women, people of color, and LGBTQ, with 224 
cosponsors on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of us were gathered together nearly 5 years ago 
to first introduce the Equality Act, that day in the LBJ room, on the 
Senate side, named after the President who fought for and signed the 
Civil Rights Act, we stood with an icon of the civil rights struggle, 
our colleague John Lewis, the conscience of Congress.
  The Civil Rights Act is a sacred pillar of freedom in our country. It 
is not amended lightly. So how proud were we to be with our beloved  
John Lewis and the Congressional Black Caucus--many of whom are here 
now, Maxine Waters, Mr. Green, and others, thank you--as they gave 
their imprimatur to the opening of the Civil Rights Act to end 
discrimination against LGBTQ Americans.
  And we remember John Lewis' life, we remember his words spoken at the 
Pride parade in Atlanta. Shortly before being diagnosed with cancer, he 
said, ``We are one people and one family. We all live in the same House 
. . . `'
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to pass this landmark legislation, we must 
salute the countless advocates, activists, outside organizers and 
mobilizers, who have for decades demanded full rights for all 
Americans. Personally, my thoughts are with my friends, the late 
Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who shared their lives together for 
decades. I have spoken of them with their photo here on the floor year 
in and year out.
  They were members, as so many of us in San Francisco, who for decades 
were engaged in civic engagement on many issues, including those issues 
related to LGBTQ rights. They were an inspiration, teaching us to take 
``pride.'' And I say that with pride.

[[Page H653]]

  When people say to me, ``It is easy for you to support LGBTQ equality 
because you are from San Francisco where people are so tolerant.'' 
Tolerant? To me, that is a condescending word. This is not about 
tolerance.
  This is about respect. This is about taking pride for Phyllis and Del 
and the older LGBTQ couples, for them, for LGBTQ workers striving to 
provide for their families, and for LGBTQ youth struggling to find 
their place, this is an historic, transformative moment of pride.
  Here in the House, this pride goes back for many years. When we first 
got the majority in 2006 and 2007, House Democrats had four goals 
relating to equality. Passing a comprehensive hate crimes bill--and 
when I say comprehensive, I mean, LGBTQ--``TQ''. ``T''. People said to 
us at the time, Take out the ``T'' and you can pass this bill in a 
minute.
  I said, If we take out the ``T,'' we are not going to pass this bill 
in 100 years because we are not bringing it up without the word 
``transgender'' in the bill.
  We passed the bill with the help of Barney Frank, our former 
colleague, and the family of Matthew Shepard who came here, touched our 
hearts, and got the votes to help us pass the legislation.
  Then we had ``Don't ask, don't tell.'' And under the leadership of 
President Obama and the courage of so many Members--Patrick Murphy, our 
former colleague and an Iraq combat vet leading the way here--we 
repealed ``Don't ask, don't tell.''

  Thank you, President Obama.
  Mr. Speaker, securing marriage equality was done for us by the 
courts. I took great pride in attending the oral arguments when that 
was argued in the courts, and what a victory it was for liberty and 
justice in our country when that decision came down.
  Our next item on the agenda was something called ENDA, ending 
discrimination in the workplace. Well, it is really called Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act, hence the ENDA.
  But then with the successes that we had, it was, Why are we just 
talking about the workplace? Why aren't we talking about every place in 
our society? And, hence, came forth ENDA which became the Equality Act, 
finally, fully, ending anti-LGBTQ discrimination on employment, 
education, housing, credit, jury service, and public accommodation. It 
removes all doubt that sexual orientation and gender identity warrants 
civil rights protection in every arena of American life.
  Codifying the recent decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 
Bostock case, it takes a momentous step towards full equality that 
brings our Nation closer to the founding promise of liberty and justice 
for all enshrined in the preamble of our Constitution by our Founders 
in their great wisdom--also, in our pledge to the flag. And it is sadly 
necessary, I wish that it weren't. Sometimes I just wonder why it is. 
But it is sadly necessary because many members of the national LGBTQ 
community live in States where, though they have the right to marry, 
they have no State-level nondiscrimination protections in other areas 
of life.
  Mr. Speaker, in more than 20 States, LGBTQ Americans do not have 
specific protections against being denied housing because of their 
sexual orientation or gender identity, and over 30 States lack 
protections regarding access to education. Nearly 40 States lack 
protections regarding jury service.
  Mr. Speaker, passing the Equality Act in the last Congress was 
historic, a day of hope and happiness for millions. Now, with the 
Democratic Senate majority and President Biden in the White House and 
Vice President Harris there as well, we will pass it once more and we 
will never stop fighting until it becomes law. We will never stop 
fighting until the Equality Act becomes law.

                              {time}  1445

  Let me conclude by returning to John Lewis and recalling his words 
spoken on this House floor on the passage of the Equality Act the first 
time. John Lewis said: We have a decision to end discrimination and set 
all of our people free.
  And set all of our people free. Today, with this legislation, we have 
an opportunity to set all of our people free and to advance the future 
of justice, equality, and dignity for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote for the Equality Act, 
salute Mr. Cicilline and Senate Merkley on the Senate side for their 
leadership, and commend the distinguished chair of the Judiciary 
Committee for once again bringing this to the floor. Thank you, 
Congresswoman, for your leadership on this issue as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
control the balance of the time on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire about the amount of time 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 19\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
Equality Act, a critical piece of civil rights legislation.
  Half a century ago, the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act became law. But we know that housing and lending 
discrimination remains a widespread problem. Former President Trump and 
his administration were shameful and cruel adversaries to justice and 
civil rights and worked to gut protections against housing and lending 
discrimination.
  According to the National Fair Housing Alliance, sex discrimination 
made up the fourth greatest basis for complaints in 2019. As housing 
discrimination continues to harm an estimated 6 to 8 million people in 
the U.S., LGBTQ-plus youth, in particular, remain at greater risk of 
homelessness compared to non-LGBTQ-plus youth, and same-sex couples are 
more likely to be denied a mortgage loan compared to hetero-sex 
couples.
  This legislation takes key steps to codify existing protections for 
our LGBTQ-plus neighbors under civil rights statutes, including the 
Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and is similar 
to provisions included in H.R. 166, a fair lending proposal by 
Representative Al Green. My committee has convened several hearings on 
this topic, including one this week, about ongoing lending 
discrimination.
  I thank Representative Cicilline for authoring this bill and Chair 
Nadler for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to please support this 
important bill that will ensure equal access to housing and wealth-
building opportunities for generations to come by expressly prohibiting 
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the 
Log Cabin Republicans opposing the legislation on the floor today.
       LCR's official statement:
       As part of the Democrats' hard shift to the left, they 
     continue to trample on the rights and freedoms of all 
     Americans in the name of equality and `equity.'
       Today, House Democrats are ramming through their latest 
     version of the so-called ``Equality Act.'' We opposed this 
     legislation in the past, and we oppose it as it stands today. 
     This is a partisan piece of legislation--it has no Republican 
     cosponsors in the House. And the insidious nature of the 
     extreme changes it will make would irreparably harm America 
     and all of the accomplishments we've worked so hard for over 
     the last few decades.
       Below, please find a complete review of this legislation 
     from our editorial and research teams at OUTSpoken.
       Let me be clear--Log Cabin Republicans is not now, nor will 
     it ever retreat on our commitment for equality for the LGBT 
     community--the transgender community included. We stand for 
     protections in employment, access to quality healthcare, and 
     equal protection under the law for our trans brothers and 
     sisters.
       But the so-called Equality Act goes to an extreme level to 
     eliminate the concept of gender, which is absurd, dangerous, 
     and way out of the mainstream.
       We're going to work through this together as a community 
     and a nation, but the Equality Act is not the solution.
       Thank you for your consideration we will keep you informed 
     of developments as they occur.


[[Page H654]]


  

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I noted that, at the outset, the bill sponsor, the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, said that every community deserves to be treated with 
dignity and respect. Every community deserves to be treated with 
dignity and respect.
  The problem with this misnamed bill is that it does not treat every 
community with dignity and respect. You have heard from previous 
speakers that this bill takes pains to say your earnestly held 
religious beliefs are no defense.
  What else does it do? Well, the basic way the legislation operates is 
to insert or substitute for the word ``sex'' as a protected 
classification the phrase ``sex, including sexual orientation and 
gender identity.'' If it did nothing more, it would be an echo of the 
Bostock decision in June. But it does do more.
  It defines the term ``included,'' so ``sex, including sexual 
orientation and gender identity.'' If you go to the definition section, 
``including'' is defined to mean ``including, but not limited to.'' 
``Including but not limited to,'' why is that? What else does the bill 
intend to do that the bill declines to state?
  Most significantly, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill removes the play in 
the joints. Let me explain what I mean. Concerning the public 
accommodations title, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, by 
the way, didn't cover sex, it defined what a public accommodation was 
for the purpose of ceasing the discrimination against Black Americans 
in public accommodations. What it said was, and it had a lot of 
synonyms, but hotels, restaurants, theaters, those were public 
accommodations.
  That language is gone in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Instead, what it 
says is a public accommodation is ``any establishment that provides a 
good, service, or program, including,'' there is that word 
``including,'' and there is a big, long list.
  So any establishment that provides any good, any service, or any 
program in our society is covered, but we are still not done because of 
the rule's construction. ``A reference in this title to an 
establishment shall be construed to include an individual whose 
operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, service, or 
program,'' any individual, the cake baker, the photographer.
  This bill flips the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on its head.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 
designed to say: No longer will Black Americans be cut out of economic 
life in this country. And it was necessary, and it was a moral evil. 
This bill flips that bill on its head, and it says to every individual: 
A condition of your participating in the economic life of the country 
is that you buy all in, you buy into this lock, stock, and barrel. If 
you do not, you will be cut out of the economic life of this country.
  There is no dignity and respect in that.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding.
  ``We the people'' is a bold opening statement enshrined in our 
Constitution. But for far too long, LGBTQ Americans have not been 
included in that statement.
  A gay couple can get married in all 50 States. A trans worker has 
legal protections from discrimination in the workplace. But despite 
this progress, a lesbian mom can be denied housing in most States 
because of her sexual orientation. A queer person can be turned away 
from serving on a jury.
  In 27 States, there are no laws protecting people from discrimination 
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in education, 
housing, and public accommodation, and this is wrong. No person, no 
matter where they live in America, should face discrimination. Equality 
should not depend on the ZIP Code where you live. Now is the time for 
``we the people'' to include LGBTQ Americans.
  My Republican colleagues are desperately trying to derail this 
legislation by cloaking their bigotry with high-minded arguments about 
religious freedom and appealing to people's worst instincts with 
transphobic attacks and grossly exaggerated examples. Their main 
argument seems to be that America doesn't want a law that will protect 
the dignity of trans people who get murdered and beat up for being who 
they are.
  In reality, trans people are among those in our community who need 
this protection the most. Republicans want to vilify people who are the 
most severe victims of injustice.
  What this law does is simple and just. It guarantees that LGBTQ 
people in every State cannot be discriminated against because of their 
identity. We have a moral imperative to get the Equality Act signed 
into law.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES of New York. As a child of the Bronx who grew up in the 
projects, I was often too scared to come out of the closet, too blinded 
by fear to see clearly my own value, my own equality. My younger self 
could have never imagined standing on the floor of the House as a 
Member of Congress, voting for legislation that, if enacted, would make 
me equal in the eyes of the law.
  As the first LGBTQ Afro-Latino Member of Congress, I feel palpably 
the weight of history on my shoulders. On behalf of my community, I am 
here to claim what discrimination denies: equal protection under the 
law.
  Indeed, we are here to uphold the abiding truth of the American 
experiment, that we are all created equal and that none of us should be 
evicted, fired, or denied accommodations and services simply because of 
who we are and because of whom we love.

  We are equal by nature, and we ought to be equal by law. The logic of 
equality is as simple as that.
  Yesterday, a Member of Congress said that the Equality Act was 
``disgusting, evil, immoral.'' I wish to set the record straight.
  What is truly immoral and disgusting and evil is discrimination. It 
always has been, and it always will be. Discrimination denies us our 
deepest humanity. The profound degradation it causes has no place in a 
society that pledges liberty and justice for all.
  So I hope that my colleagues, all of them, will find the moral 
courage to uphold what the Declaration of Independence promises and 
what the Equality Act delivers: life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness for all of us, without exception, without discrimination.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, unlike most speeches you will hear on this 
floor today, I am going to start with the truth.
  Deuteronomy 22:5 states: A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a 
man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who 
does this.
  Now, this verse isn't concerned about clothing styles but with people 
determining their own sexual identities. It is not clothing or personal 
style that offends God but, rather, the use of one's appearance to act 
out or take on a sexual identity different from the one biologically 
assigned by God at birth. In his wisdom, God intentionally made each 
individual uniquely either male or female.

                              {time}  1500

  When men or women claim to be able to choose their own sexual 
identity, they are making a statement that God did not know what he was 
doing when he created them. I am going to quote directly from Dr. Tony 
Evans' commentary Bible on this passage of Scripture: ``Men and women 
equally share in bearing the image of God, but he has designed them to 
be distinct from and complementary toward one another. The gender 
confusion that exists in our culture today is a clear rejection of 
God's good design. Whenever a nation's laws no longer reflect the 
standards of God, that nation is in rebellion against

[[Page H655]]

him and will inevitably bear the consequences.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to read that line again. ``Whenever a 
nation's laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is in 
rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences.'' I 
think we are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our 
country today, and this bill speaks directly against what is laid out 
in Scripture.
  Our government, through this bill, is going to redefine what a woman 
is and what a man is. It can be anyone who identifies in that gender at 
any time. You are going to singlehandedly end women's sports and all 
the gains for women's rights contained in Title IX that was passed in 
this body since 1972. Singlehandedly destroying women's sports in the 
name of equality, how ironic.
  If biological men compete in women's sports, then it is no longer 
women's sports at all. We might as well just have one sports team per 
event, and women, transgender women, men, transgender men can all 
compete against each other. How is that for equality?
  If biological differences didn't matter, we would never have created 
and funded separate teams for men and women. We know that science 
supports the idea that there are performance differences between 
biological men and women in competitive sports, and it is just common 
sense to the vast majority of Americans, just not common sense to this 
Democratic majority.
  In Connecticut, three high school female track runners have had to 
file a lawsuit because their Title IX protections were violated by 
biological male athletes competing against them. They had no choice but 
to file suit after they were forced to compete against biological male 
athletes, and after those biological male athletes brought home 15 
women's State championship titles. I could stand up here and give you 
example after example of this happening throughout our country in all 
sports categories, but I don't have near the time.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to protect women's sports, then vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition ascribes as 
God's will is no concern of this Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, at a 
townhall in my district, a young student asked me: What is Congress 
going to do to protect trans people like me? He bravely stood before an 
auditorium of neighbors and told me he was terrified by the bigotry and 
discrimination against him and his LGBTQ-plus community members.
  I have heard these fears expressed by my own nonbinary child. Their 
fears are not misplaced. Our LGBTQ neighbors face discrimination in 
healthcare, housing, education, and employment. Even here, in the 
people's House, Members of Congress are describing transgender people 
as something less than, as undeserving, and illegitimate.
  Today, our vote for the Equality Act says to every person that you 
matter, that you deserve to live your truth with respect and dignity, 
that there will be no true freedom for anyone until there is equality 
for everyone.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker.
  You used God to enslave my foreparents. You used God to segregate me 
in schools. You used God to put me in the back of the bus.
  Have you no shame? God created every person in this room. Are you 
saying that God made a mistake?
  This is not about God; it is about men who choose to discriminate 
against other people because they have the power to do so.
  My record will not show that I voted against Mr. Cicilline having his 
rights. My record will show that when I had the opportunity to deliver 
liberty and justice for all, I voted for rights for all.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone uses God. We have just 
cited what is in the legislation, which specifically says the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act shall not provide a defense against what this 
bill is doing. That is all we have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Equality Act is not about 
tolerance. It seeks to impose the will of this body on the American 
people in violation of the Constitution.
  It establishes a woke heresy code, seeking to eliminate distinctions 
between male and female at every level. It cancels women's and girls' 
sports, requiring that biological males compete for their records, 
championships, and scholarships.
  It nullifies the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rather than 
preserve the constitutionally protected freedom to disagree, disguised 
as equality, it compels participation on your terms for abortions, 
weddings, and all of religious, vocational, and civic life. It pursues 
what Hillary Clinton said in 2016: You will just have to change your 
doctrine.
  Let me assure you, that will not happen. Colleagues, we must defend 
freedom and defeat this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day. Today, we send a clear 
message to every LGBTQ person that you belong here, that you are loved 
for who you are, and that we won't stop fighting until you experience 
true equity and equality.
  We are experiencing a crisis of violence against our LGBTQ neighbors, 
especially people of color, and our transgender communities. Today's 
passage is for Treasure Hilliard, for Paris Cameron, and for every 
LGBTQ person taken too soon by hate.
  When one in five transgender people has experienced homelessness, 
when transgender people have half the homeownership rate of cisgender 
people, we have a structural problem. By outlawing discrimination in 
housing, employment, education, and public accommodations, we send a 
powerful message to the bigots, including those here in Congress, that 
their time is over.
  Listen very closely, and remember these words: We are winning. We 
will continue winning. Our will is unbreakable. Our love is so much 
stronger than your sad, pathetic hate.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire about the amount of time left 
for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 8\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, nearly half of all LGBTQ people in 
America lack protections from discrimination in employment, education, 
housing, public accommodations, and credit. This is an abject failure 
to recognize the humanity and dignity in all of us. And, as I have 
spoken on before as the chairwoman of the House Small Business 
Committee, discrimination is bad for business. That is why we need the 
Equality Act.
  We also need to recognize the mental health impacts of failing to 
treat all people equally under the law. Discrimination is linked to 
increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Until all are 
equal in the eyes of the law, we are allowing bigotry to silence and 
shame.
  So, today, I am voting ``yes'' for all those who have been made less 
by their government's failure to protect them. I am voting ``yes'' for 
the nearly 2 million LGBTQ youth who are counting on us. I see you, and 
I welcome you in my heart.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Equality 
Act, important legislation that will secure the civil rights of our 
LGBTQ community.
  Our LGBTQ friends, neighbors, colleagues, and community members

[[Page H656]]

should not miss an educational opportunity, or be denied housing or 
credit, because of who they are or who they love.
  I was proud to help pass the Oregon Equality Act when I was in the 
State legislature. The same arguments were being made back then, in 
2007, that some of our colleagues are making today. Do you know what 
came to pass? Those concerns did not come to pass. What happened? The 
law brought dignity, security, and peace of mind to the LGBTQ 
community.
  It is long past time that LGBTQ Americans across the country have the 
same protections. As the chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services 
Subcommittee, I have heard from students and workers who were 
discriminated against, people who were deeply harmed by antigay and 
transphobic attacks.
  Today, I am thinking about the trans people in Oregon and around the 
country who are bravely standing up for equality. We stand with you. We 
will keep working to create a world where you are safe, free, and 
supported.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Cicilline for his leadership.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Equality 
Act, and I associate myself with the remarks of the bill's sponsor, the 
gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Because Mr. Cicilline and my colleagues have already said all that 
there is to say about the clear merits of the bill, I would simply ask, 
through the Chair, that if our colleagues on the other side cannot find 
it within themselves to support this bill out of a sense of fairness 
and goodwill to those enduring discrimination, then please do so out of 
concern for their parents, people just like our colleagues on the other 
side, mothers and fathers who love their children every bit as much as 
our colleagues love theirs.
  We want nothing more than to send our kids out into the world with 
confidence and a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly and 
equally. It is never too late to do the right thing.
  Please join us in voting ``yes'' on the Equality Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here today, to be on the 
record in favor of this legislation.
  No one should be fired from their job or evicted from their home 
because of who they are or who they love.

                              {time}  1515

  This legislation will guarantee that our LGBTQ friends, neighbors, 
and family will be full members of the American family with all of the 
protections that come with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just say one thing before I sit down. For anyone 
who ever wondered what they would have done in those days in the early 
1960s, when the civil rights legislation was being debated here, let me 
just say this: Whatever you are doing now is what you would have done 
then.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, the last statement was ridiculous, and I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, as a founding vice chair of the 
LGBTQ-plus Equality Caucus, I am proud, once again, to cast my vote for 
the Equality Act. It is my sincere hope that this is finally the year 
that it will be signed into law.
  In dozens of States, including my own, LGBTQ Americans are still 
denied housing, discriminated against in education, or denied service 
at businesses. The Trump administration ruthlessly attacked the LGBTQ 
community's rights from the transgender military ban to allowing 
doctors to deny medical care to LGBTQ individuals.
  States have continued to put forward so-called bathroom bills. 
Legislators in my own State have introduced bills to deny medical care 
to trans children and prevent trans youth from playing sports. Even 
worse, 44 trans Americans were murdered in 2020, the deadliest year on 
record.
  We can't tolerate any more discrimination. It costs lives. The 
Equality Act is vital so that Americans everywhere can love whom they 
love and be their authentic selves without fear of persecution, 
eviction, or discrimination.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).
  Ms. HERRELL. Mr. Speaker, I first want to agree with the bill's 
sponsor from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) that discrimination is wrong.
  He went on to say the bill, H.R. 5, does no more and does no less 
than to give LGBTQ people the respect and equality they deserve. But I 
disagree because the bill moves us far beyond nondiscrimination and 
toward a place of one side over another. It eliminates mutual respect.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't be so anxious to protect one class of people 
that we harm another. For instance, the bill forces churches in the 
public square to do things that counter their deeply held beliefs. It 
moves our Nation away from our Judeo-Christian values. It places women 
in sports, in domestic shelters, and in the healthcare profession at 
risk. It allows government to take an even more drastic step of making 
decisions that should be reserved for our families.
  The Equality Act is anything but. Let's not be fooled by the title.
  It would, likewise, force both people and organizations in many 
everyday life and work settings to speak or act in support of gender 
transition, including healthcare workers and licensed counselors, even 
when it is against their professional judgment. The Equality Act would 
force healthcare providers to perform abortions and gender transition 
surgeries against their deeply held religious beliefs. That is not 
equality.
  Any parent who does not want their child to go through gender 
reassignment surgery at a young and vulnerable age would be 
stigmatized, and there is a risk that their child could be taken away 
or the life-altering surgery would be done with the blessing of only 
one parent. This diminishes the ability of parents to raise their 
children and to pass on their values. It is Washington, D.C., that 
ultimately decides the morality of our children and our churches.
  If this is truly about respect, then let's start with it here in this 
Chamber. I must correct the record, and I take exception to being 
labeled as someone who vilifies those across the aisle. That is simply 
not true. No one on this side of the aisle has said ``less than'' or 
``illegitimate.'' These are the labels being used on your side, not by 
me and not by my colleagues.
  If we want to do what is right by the American people, then let's 
start respecting one another in this Chamber. Let's start doing things 
that are for the benefit of the people. Let's start understanding that 
we are here to protect all lives. All lives matter.
  But when we can't stop fighting and discouraging each other in this 
Chamber, shame on us, because we are going to do a lot better for the 
people who sent us here when we can start having civil conversation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One of the sad things that is happening in America, Mr. Speaker, is 
that the truth is so often being perceived as fake news or that fake 
news is so often being perceived as the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have worked for a United States 
Senator during the civil rights era. And I would get a publication--
because I opened the mail; I had a hifalutin job--from what was called 
the Cross and the Sword, a publication that came somewhere from the 
South. I forget where its headquarters was.
  I remember reading how the Bible told us that we should not integrate 
America and that if God had wanted us all to be together, then we would 
be the same color. I perceived that then and I perceive that now as 
absurd.
  So I proudly rise in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and 
congratulate Mr.

[[Page H657]]

Cicilline and all those who have worked on getting this bill to this 
point on this floor.
  We passed it before, of course, and sent it to the United States 
Senate. They ignored it, to their discredit. The House passed this bill 
last Congress with bipartisan support. I hope we have bipartisan 
support this year because I remember, Mr. Speaker, back in the days of 
the early sixties and mid-sixties there were giants in the Republican 
Party who stood with Democrats on behalf of civil rights. I hope we can 
repeat that today because there is no room in America--it says here in 
2021 that there should have been no room in America from 1776 on when 
we said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident''--for legal 
discrimination.

  There are moments in our history that are celebrated for generations 
as those in which Americans came together to perfect our Union and to 
protect and uphold the universal rights enshrined in our founding 
documents. That is what we as a nation did with the 13th, 14th and 15th 
Amendments. It is what we did with the 19th Amendment where we said: 
Oh, yes, I know you are a woman, but you are going to be equal, you are 
going to be allowed to vote.
  What a radical idea that was and how long it took.
  We did it as well with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act 
of 1960. We did it together with the bill that I was proud to sponsor 
on this floor, the Americans with Disabilities Act. We said that it is 
not your disability that counts; it is your ability; drop the ``dis.''
  We can do it again today with Mr. Cicilline's Equality Act, affirming 
that equality is for everyone all the time and everywhere.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, would ban discrimination against LGBTQ 
Americans in every area where it still exists and in every State that 
still permits it. One nation under God, indivisible. Not discrimination 
in the Northwest and discrimination in the Northeast or discrimination 
in the South or the Southwest. One nation--no discrimination--fairness 
and equality for all.
  That includes housing, public education, personal finance and credit, 
employment, healthcare, jury service, and public accommodation. The 
practical effect of such legalized discrimination is the denial of 
opportunities and economic security to certain Americans because of 
their gender identity or sexual orientation.
  The practical effect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, will be to open the 
doors of opportunity and economic security to those for whom they were 
shut for far, far too long.
  I want to thank Representative Cicilline. I want to thank the 
gentleman in the Chair for his leadership and courage. Both of them 
have displayed such worth as human beings and as colleagues, not by 
some arbitrary definition that we give to them based upon their sexual 
orientation or whether any of us, because of our gender, male or 
female, or our color, Black or White or yellow or red, one nation under 
God, indivisible. This legislation tries to recognize that 
indivisibility of the right of all Americans.
  I want to express my gratitude to the Congressional LGBTQ-Plus 
Equality Caucus, which has provided leadership both in shaping and 
improving this legislation championing its adoption.
  The House will pass this legislation today, and then I hope it will 
not be lost in the politics of the Senate. That body has an 
extraordinary record over the centuries in terms of civil rights. It 
should uphold that record. I know that the Democratic Senate majority 
is eager to see it considered and passed.
  As I said, when I grew up in the sixties in the civil rights 
movement, many Republican leaders were giants in this effort. I hope 
the Senate Republicans who have stood in the way of equality of 
opportunity for LGBTQ Americans for too long will finally come together 
with them in a bipartisan fashion and allow an up-or-down vote. That is 
all we ask, an up-or-down vote.
  Frankly, that is not all we ask. We ask for 10 Republicans to join us 
with 50 Democrats to make this a reality. Most Americans have come to 
understand that ending discrimination for LGBTQ people is about the 
fundamental rights and dignity of their fellow Americans, and it is 
about who we are as a country, who we claim to be but for far too long 
were not.
  We know we are not there yet, but this is a very significant and 
important step for us to take in a land of opportunity for all and a 
land of liberty and justice for all. So let us affirm that today in 
this House. And I hope the Senate, in days to come, will join in that 
affirmation of justice for all, and let us make this a day to remember 
in our history as one where we came together to perfect our Union, as  
John Lewis would say, one more time.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this so-called Equality Act is the 
culmination of a 50-year effort by the radical left to attack our 
values, our families, our children, and our religious freedoms.
  I ran for office as a Biblical and constitutional Conservative 
because I believe in our Nation's founding Judeo-Christian principles 
and the importance of faith and family to this unique American form of 
government.
  John Adams confirmed that this was the intent of the Founders when he 
stated: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious 
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''
  I don't think he could have envisioned we would be here today 
defending the right to life for the unborn, what our children are 
taught in school regarding their own gender, the protection for people 
to practice their faith without fear of government, and the importance 
of the traditional family.
  This bill is one of the most dangerous and consequential bills that 
we will ever consider. It will have a terribly negative impact on every 
area of our lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).
  Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Equality Act, landmark legislation that provides LGBTQ people with the 
full protections of Federal civil rights law.
  Among many other critical protections that the Equality Act extends 
to LGBTQ people are housing protections for homeless youth who can be 
harassed, assaulted, or even kicked out of shelters based on their 
gender identity or sexual orientation. This is because 27 States across 
the Nation lack LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections.
  At the same time, LGBTQ youth are 120 percent more likely to 
experience homelessness. Protecting young people, giving them the 
resources to succeed early in life and keeping them safe and secure are 
all values we share. The Equality Act takes a massive step forward to 
advance these values, reflecting the tremendous progress forged by our 
Nation and those who came before us.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
so-called Equality Act.
  Rather than delivering equality, this bill undermines protections for 
women and for girls. And simply put, women's shelters should remain 
women's shelters and not allow biological men to intrude. And girls' 
sports should remain sports for girls.
  This is not equal opportunity. This is catastrophic for girls' 
sports. This is what the Equality Act seeks to overturn, and that is 
fairness in girls' sports.
  All of this is even before mentioning the provisions that would 
undermine religious freedom. Religious organizations shouldn't be 
forced to act contrary to their beliefs. This is why they call it 
religious freedom, after all.
  This bill poses a dangerous threat to free speech, religious freedom, 
and pro-life, the sanctity of life. This, honestly, goes against 
everything that I believe as a Christian and I will be opposing this 
bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I proudly rise in 
support of the Equality Act.

[[Page H658]]

  Today, I am the voice of so many people, like my constituent, Chanel; 
my friend, James; my sister, Danielle and her fiance, Marlena; my 
staffer, Kristina and her partner, Vivian; and all of my friends back 
home on the front lines with Georgia Equality.
  For far too long, the inherent rights of LGBTQ people have hung in 
the balance. I am in Congress to ensure that everyone can share in the 
promise of America, no matter who they love or how they identify.
  LGBTQ people have lived in fear of punishment and retaliation for far 
too long. The right to exist in this country is not a privilege, but an 
inalienable right.
  I have the great honor of representing Atlanta, a city vibrant with a 
long history of LGBTQ-plus pride. To my LGBTQ-plus constituents, know 
that it is my honor to represent you. I hear you. I see you. I stand 
with you. The promise of America excludes no one.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, this bill smacks of President 
Barack Obama's transgender bathroom policy several years back. I 
remember that, how ridiculous that was.
  It was reported in Texas a young girl went into a bathroom in a 
package store, was followed by a male who said he self-identified as a 
female that day. More about her in a minute.
  This is not an Equality Act. This is going to erode religious 
freedom. This expressly exempts RFRA from being a defense if someone 
has a sincerely religiously held belief.
  The comment was made earlier that we are using God as an excuse. I 
hardly think so. The Founders of the Constitution knew exactly what 
they were doing when they provided for those protections.
  If the Equality Act is passed, individuals with religious views will 
be disfavored by this bill and it will not have RFRA as a tool to 
defend against a violation of their religious freedom.
  H.R. 5 will politicize the medical profession to the detriment of the 
practitioners and the patients. It is unbelievable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Craig). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. The girl that was followed into the bathroom by 
the gentleman who said he self-identified as a female that day, turns 
out that that man's teeth were knocked out by the girl's father who 
self-identified as the tooth fairy.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I get it now. This is all about 
protecting women. This intolerance is the Republicans' effort to show 
us how much they want to protect the rights of women. They want us to 
believe that protecting LGBTQ Americans somehow hurts women and girls. 
But they know better, and history will accurately reflect what it 
really is.
  It is an ugly, twisted use of feminism. It is what it is. It is 
homophobia. It is transphobia. It is intolerance, and it is hatred.
  There is no constitutional right to hate. There is no constitutional 
right to exclude, and there is no right of conscience to hate.
  Trans rights are human rights. LGBTQ rights are human rights. We must 
pass the Equality Act now.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, we have talked all day in here 
about discrimination, and we need to put some facts on the table.
  Madam Speaker, 0.6 percent of Americans identify as transgender. 
However, 80 percent of Americans identify with a religious affiliation. 
50.5 percent of people in this country identify as female; yet we 
consistently want to infringe on the rights of all those other 
Americans for 0.6 percent of the population in this country.
  Now, I have daughters, and I have encouraged them their whole life to 
do what you want to do in life; you can succeed. But we see, time and 
time again, that males are being put in competition in sports directly 
against our females.
  My question is: Where are the feminists today? Why are they not here 
with the Members of this caucus fighting for the rights of females?
  We are going to infringe consistently on that 50.5 percent of the 
American population by allowing males to compete in sports against 
them.
  Madam Speaker, 86 percent of the people in this Nation identify as 
religious people. We are going to allow this law and the overreach of 
the left in this country to start infringing on those people's rights 
and, Madam Speaker, I have got to vote against it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to put on 
their masks.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise as the proud grandmother of a 
trans young man, and I just want to say that any family would be lucky 
to have the amazing and loving and smart and funny Isaac in their 
family.
  And I rise today to say thank you to the generations of people who 
have been arrested and beaten and excluded and sometimes killed for 
this fight. Let today be the end.
  I thank Congressman Cicilline and all of those who have spoken today 
and are going to vote for freedom. This is a remarkable day, not just 
for my Isaac, but for all the young people who are frightened today. No 
more. We are with you.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Hice).
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot today about 
discrimination against the LGBTQ community and them being kicked out of 
housing or whatever. No one wants that.
  But my question, Madam Speaker, to my friends on the other side was: 
Would they also agree that no one who disagrees with their views should 
be kicked out of their homes or lose their job?
  Should adoption agencies not be allowed to continue operating if they 
don't believe in that?
  Should houses of worship close because they continue teaching the 
traditional biblical values and principles of male and female?
  And I would suspect the answer would be no; that they should be 
fired, they should close, because the bill itself clearly states that 
religious rights and freedoms are not protected in this bill. And that 
is what is so dangerous.
  This is a bill of tyranny, where government is telling people what 
they must believe and punishing them if they do not believe and do not 
conform. This is a dangerous bill. It codifies in itself 
discrimination.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate in amazement. I have 
been involved in this struggle for equality for many, many years. I was 
the chief author in the House of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 
and to hear it suggested that I would turn my back on religious freedom 
is just ridiculous.
  This bill enshrines equality. It enshrines equality for everyone. 
That is its purpose. It does not contradict the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act which, as a number of people have mentioned, I was the 
chief author of. But it does enshrine equality, and that is what our 
friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be afraid of, equality.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have the right to close. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, at the start of the debate, the sponsor of the bill 
said discrimination is wrong. It sure is. We shouldn't tolerate it.
  But this bill makes how a person identifies more important than 
equality; makes it more important than

[[Page H659]]

fairness; makes it more important than fundamental liberties like your 
right to practice your faith the way you think the good Lord wants you 
to.
  And you would think a change of this magnitude would get a little 
more than 90 minutes debate on the House floor. That is why we should 
oppose this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is precisely because this bill enshrines equality; it is precisely 
because of the nonsensical nature of the arguments from the other side 
of the aisle that the Equality Act has 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--to end sexual violence--the National Coalition 
of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Women's Law Center, the Network 
Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the Rabbinical Assembly, and the 
United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, all of 
whom obviously would not endorse this bill if it had anything to do 
with destroying religious liberty.
  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, and 
hundreds of other businesses.
  I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the 
Equality Act, and as a co-founder and Vice-chair of the House Equality 
Caucus, I want to voice my full support of this bill. I want to thank 
the Speaker and Chairman Nadler for acting quickly on this legislation. 
I also want to thank my friend Rep. Cicilline, as well as my fellow 
caucus co-chairs, for their efforts.
  Our federal laws still do not protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender and queer people from discrimination. Almost two-thirds of 
LGBTQ Americans report having experienced discrimination--and LGBTQ 
people of color often face compounded injustices, including higher 
rates of unemployment and health challenges.
  The Equality Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, 
credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded 
programs, and jury service. The Equality Act will help ensure that 
LGBTQ Americans can play their vital role in our nation and our 
communities without fear of harassment and discrimination.
  As a Black woman in America, I know what it is like to face injustice 
and inequality. I applaud House passage of the Equality Act as an 
historic milestone in our effort to build a more just society. I hope 
the Senate will pass it quickly and send it to the President for 
enactment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
5 because it puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws 
that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk and out of an 
abundance of concern for the women and children who flee to the 
protection of domestic abuse shelters,.
  H.R. 5 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, H.R. 5 goes on to state:

       (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; . . .

  In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' 
including dismembering, chemically poisoning or otherwise destroying an 
unborn baby girl or boy.
  In a legal analysis released this month, the United States Conference 
of Catholic Bishops wrote:
  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 including Katelyn Burns, New Congress 
Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018). 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.'' In other words, 
there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from 
becoming politically visible.
  In an incisive analysis of H.R. 5, Richard Doerflinger exposes the 
risk to unborn children, conscience rights and state all laws 
preventing taxpayer funding for abortion:
  ``Of especially grave concern is that the Equality Act introduces 
this same language on sex and ``pregnancy discrimination'' into Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act, forbidding discrimination in ``federally 
assisted programs.'' This applies to a wide range of entities that may 
receive federal funds, including state and local government agencies, 
educational institutions, organizations providing health care, etc. (42 
USC 2000d-4a). All of these would be required to show that they do not 
exclude the full range of treatments for the ``condition'' of 
pregnancy. Not only the federal government, but all states that receive 
federal funds for their health programs, could be required to fund 
elective abortions, reversing the longstanding policy of two-thirds of 
the states. The same changes to the definition of ``sex'' are made to 
Title II, on discrimination in places of ``public accommodation,'' and 
that title's definition of a ``public accommodation'' is expanded to 
include ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or 
program,'' including any provider of ``health care'' (H.R. 5, Sec. 3 
(a)(d)).''
  I also oppose H.R. 5 out of genuine concern for the women and 
children who seek refuge in a domestic abuse shelter.
  By granting biological men--who self-identify as women-access to 
women's shelters, H.R. 5 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women 
and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and 
psychological security.
  In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in 
Fresno, California-Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House-filed a 
lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he 
had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been 
sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made 
``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make 
``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were 
forced to undress in the same room with him.
  After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both 
verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women 
were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused 
to comply.
  Madam Speaker, if we allow biological men who self-identify as women 
to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and 
children will lose the 'safe space' they so desperately need.
  We must first and foremost protect victims of violence.
  These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel 
protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process to heal 
as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a 
shelter and its facilities--including showers and sleeping areas--with 
biological men who self-identify as women will likely cause these women 
and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear 
of additional assault.

[[Page H660]]

  Women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe 
space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and 
intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her 
life.
  These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and 
support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and 
children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill.
  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. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 206, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               YEAS--224

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--206

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boebert
     Young

                              {time}  1627

  Messrs. McKINLEY and MEUSER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Craig). Without objection, a motion to 
reconsider is laid on the table.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 39.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Allred (Davids (KS))
     Amodei (Kelly (PA))
     Bowman (Clark (MA))
     Buchanan (Donalds)
     Budd (McHenry)
     Calvert (Garcia (CA))
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Carter (TX) (Nehls)
     Cawthorn (McHenry)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Fletcher (Kuster)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (Franklin, C. Scott)
     Gonzalez, Vincente (Gomez)
     Gosar (Wagner)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Himes (Courtney)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Trahan)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Nunes (Garcia (CA))
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Roybal-Allard (Bass)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Steube (Franklin, C. Scott)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________