Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)

[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)

____________________