Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to designate certain lands in the State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I call up

the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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).

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.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition ascribes as God's will is no concern of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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.

Madam Speaker, I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 147 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 147, providing for consideration of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Grijalva. It also makes in order 29 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Grijalva, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for two critical pieces of legislation, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

This is a historic day for Congress and for equal rights. Over 45 years ago, Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the Equality Act, a bill that will provide full legal protections to LGBTQ people all across our country by extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act to them and making clear that we must respect, defend, and celebrate the dignity innate of everyone in our communities, including--and perhaps especially--those who are perceived as different or non-binary.

The version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil rights laws to provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life: employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.

Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services covered in current law to include retail stores and services, such as banks, legal services, and transportation. These important updates would strengthen existing protections for everyone.

The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a dear colleague who is a historymaker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island. Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, religious groups, and a host of civil rights groups to make sure the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while protecting existing civil rights for other marginalized groups.

The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employees in the country, our largest labor unions, and the hundreds of organizations including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ.

And, most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans support this legislation, including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

The clear majority of both the House and the American people recognize that for too long LGBTQ people have faced discrimination with no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute that LGBTQ people-- especially transgender people and, even more so, transgender women of color--face discrimination across this country.

To echo other speakers, this issue is deeply personal for me. It has been personal since my baby sister came out to me almost 40 years ago. For many people all across this country and across this House, that is when this fight hits home.

It gets personal when someone whom you love says: This is who I am.

It gets personal when you know and value that person and you want to do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live their life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination.

I am sad to say that my home, Pennsylvania, is one of the 30 States that defies the will of its people by not having legal protections for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister--someone who put her life on the line for our country when she served in our Armed Forces--could drive across State lines and lose protections is heartbreaking.

The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates uniform, nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that being transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move home to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil rights protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the security and stability that comes from knowing that, if they face discrimination, they have legal recourse.

It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The Equality Act does not impinge on religious freedom. Religious liberty is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious organizations are currently able to prefer their own members and their version of morality in hiring for religious positions, such as ministers and schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that. The Equality Act does not force anyone to perform or obtain abortions in violation of their religious beliefs, and it does not strip girls of their title 9 protections.

The Equality Act does clarify what has long been held: That religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws.

Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act LGBTQ families will be protected from discrimination regardless of its motivation.

Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often all across this country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. Having hired a babysitter to look after their young children, they are hoping to have a relaxing night out. But, instead, when they are seated and looking at the menu, the manager comes over and tells them that they have to leave. They aren't welcome.

This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis across this country, and in 30 States the couple would have no legal recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg. Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing; qualified and high- performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their jobs; and LGBTQ young people face rejection and discrimination in school, which can deny them an education.

These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence. The impact is felt the hardest by transgender women of color, who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination is all too often deadly.

The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection has ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are succeeding despite discrimination.

We are talking here about the civil rights of our friends, our family, and public servants. In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, served in the Governor's cabinet as Secretary for Health, and has recently been nominated by President Biden to serve as Assistant Health Secretary.

Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and Executive Director of the National Center for

Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections.

Sarah McBride was recently sworn in as the first transgender Senator in the State of Delaware.

And of course, Pete Buttigieg was recently sworn in as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, becoming the first openly gay cabinet member to be confirmed by the Senate.

Opponents of the Equality Act keep trying to pit cisgender girls against transgender girls, when really this legislation is about strengthening opportunity for all girls and women. Whether it is women's sports, single-sex colleges, or homeless services for women, the Equality Act simply prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in these areas. It doesn't undermine these institutions or prohibit them; it simply ensures that they are inclusive of all women and girls, including trans women and girls.

Support for this legislation is overwhelming and deserves an overwhelmingly positive response from this body. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and underlying legislation, and further encourage the Senate to swiftly act to pass this bill so that we can finally provide firm, statutory protections to the LGBTQ community.

Next, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. This is a package of public bills from the Natural Resources Committee that will designate more than 1.5 million acres as wilderness areas, and more than 1,200 river miles into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The bill would also withdraw more than 1.2 million acres of public land from new drilling and mining, ensuring that iconic landscapes like the Grand Canyon and Colorado's Thompson Divide are permanently protected for future generations to enjoy.

Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by Americans as are our public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 million acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us combat climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer recreational activities to Americans young and old.

As we continue to endure the devastating effects of climate change, providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness will allow for these areas to continue to serve as critical ``carbon sinks'' to capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

A similar version of this legislation passed the House last Congress, but this version includes a critical new piece from Natural Resources Committee Chairman Grijalva, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. This bill would permanently ban new mining claims on approximately one million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park, while helping to protect the clean water resources critical to the livelihoods of local Tribal communities.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act was developed by Chairman Grijalva in close consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders in his district and serves to protect one of the most cherished places in the United States.

You may hear my colleague from Pennsylvania argue that this bill is nothing but a land grab, an attempt to subvert private industry. Of course, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Mining, like every other industry, is subject to the whim of the free market. Historically, when the demand for these minerals has dropped, mining companies are all too prepared to skip town without cleaning up any of their mess.

This bill isn't about whether or not nuclear energy and its inputs will be part of our clean energy future, but if we want to ensure that it is, then I would recommend that we first start by supporting effective regulations on new and existing nuclear plants and their capabilities. The best way to ensure demand for a product is to similarly ensure that its user won't decide it isn't worth pursuing or is unaffordable.

The merits of nuclear energy aside, you can't deny that its use in this country is on the downswing or, at the very least, stagnant. This isn't due to over-regulation; it is due to under-regulation. It is due to massive cost overruns and incompetent government oversight.

The U.S. has had only one new nuclear reactor become operational in the last 20 years. This isn't because a mining company or two hasn't been afforded the opportunity to desecrate our national resources, but because the U.S. has not yet proven we can responsibly operate a nuclear plant that, from start to finish, is safe and has the trust of the American people.

Public lands do not belong to those only in the Congressional district in which they are located; they belong to all of us. Wilderness areas in the great State of Colorado belong to you and me as much as Independence Hall belongs to a native of Colorado. We all have a role to play in protecting these lands and seeking carveouts for mining companies is not the right way forward.

I want to especially thank my colleague, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, for her tireless and bipartisan work in getting this legislation to such a great place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that over 20 States already have versions of this law, the Equality Act, with respect to participation in sports, as do the Olympics, and we have not seen the kind of behavior that has just been suggested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I would just restate that this act does not take away any of the religious freedoms that are already enshrined in multiple laws. It does not change those laws.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the gentlewoman's question, with respect to the language in question, it has long been held by our courts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to civil rights laws.

The Equality Act looks to treat discrimination against LGBTQ individuals the same way as other forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination. So, these arguments just don't hold water.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that what we saw in Texas this past week was a truly astonishing, unusual snowstorm with frigid cold conditions that are not normal--as the Speaker knows--in Texas, and that happens because of climate change.

Because we haven't done enough to protect our wilderness and to protect our environment, we end up with extreme climate events like we just saw, and this bill is a step toward redressing that imbalance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just note, as a parent, a former school board member, and education advocate, of course, we all want what is best for our students and what is best for our schools.

But I would also suggest that a one-size-fits-all, everybody has to go back in person to schools does not serve anybody well.

We have seen around the country--first of all, our schools in Pennsylvania are not closed. They are open. Some are virtual, some are hybrid, some are in person. But each community is doing what it needs to do in response to the conditions that are present at this time.

So I agree with my colleague on the Rules Committee that we absolutely need to get our school districts and our State and local governments the money they need to safely reopen schools, and we are looking forward to doing that with our reconciliation bill on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I just inquire whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are moving forward on two pieces of legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. And I would note that H.R. 5 did pass last Congress with a bipartisan majority.

So we are looking forward, at long last, to passing the Equality Act through both Chambers and removing the burden of discrimination that can move us closer to a country where members of the LGBTQ community have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

The Equality Act isn't going to be the end of our long journey toward full LGBTQ equality, but it will bring our laws into line across the country with values that our country was founded upon.

We must continually take steps to make our country more perfect. Acknowledging in law the challenges that actually face LGBTQ people and taking concrete action to correct them brings us another step closer.

Mr. Speaker, we will pass the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act in order to ensure that the sacred lands that all Americans share equally cannot be tarnished for the benefit of a few.

We have a long way to go in addressing the myriad problems facing this country, but the two bills before us today are a strong and necessary start to helping our Nation live up to its full potential.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 147

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-

person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to

the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit. If the Committee of the

Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on

the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall,

immediately after the third daily order of business under

clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole

for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 682.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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,

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from my home State of Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for the consideration of two pieces of legislation. Let's just look at both pieces one at a time.

The first bill, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, provides for civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals.

Let me start by saying that Republicans believe all people should be treated equally under the law. Let me repeat that. Republicans believe all people should be treated equally under the law. But the Equality Act misses that mark.

Rather, H.R. 5 represents a radical departure from existing civil rights protections that will have significant implications on everyday life, and eliminate laws ensuring women and girls have the same opportunities as men and boys.

Just take student athletics. H.R. 5 would redefine sex to include gender identity, meaning a transgender woman, a person who was born genetically male but identifies as a woman, could not be barred from participating in girls' or women's athletics.

Further, I have concerns that, due to the lack of committee action, this bill has not been fully thought out and it may be difficult, frankly, if not impossible, to actually implement in line with congressional intent.

Perhaps the most pressing example of this is the term ``gender identity,'' which is so vague that even the special interest groups backing this bill cannot agree on a single definition of that.

Lastly, I am troubled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not applicable under this measure. Without this vital protection, churches, synagogues, mosques, and religiously affiliated schools will be forced to act contrary to their deeply held beliefs or stop offering certain services to the public.

Religious freedom was once an issue that all Americans, regardless of political party, strongly supported. It is incredibly disappointing to see my colleagues across the aisle abandon this principle in an effort to appease their far-left radical progressive base.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. This legislation consists of 8 natural resources bills, and will create nearly 1.5 million acres of wilderness, establish the most restrictive Federal land use classification, as well as lock up rivers and other lands across four western States.

Like all my Republican colleagues, I strongly support responsible preservation of our Nation's natural resources. Remember, it was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who started this movement.

However, my colleagues across the aisle have ignored this and have gone way too far. This bill takes a partisan approach to public land protection, and not a single Republican has cosponsored the underlying measures.

Further, some of the lands affected by this legislation lie in congressional districts where Members of Congress do not support such actions. These Members have not had the opportunity to share their opposition or their concerns, as bills in H.R. 803 were not marked up by this Congress.

H.R. 803 also ignores input from local communities, who voiced concern that these measures will hurt local economies and rural jobs. As we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the last thing that we should be doing is eliminating good-paying, family-sustaining jobs.

Further, this bill will actually increase catastrophic wildfires, as the new wilderness and scenic river designations prohibit scientific forest management.

I am especially concerned that this measure withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production, including uranium, a necessary component for the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet.

Currently, our Nation is relying on China for the vast majority of rare earth elements and critical materials, which are necessary for everything from building a fighter jet to a cell phone.

Just last week, we saw China threaten to cut off its mineral supply to American defense contractors. We have watched as China has done this to sister democracies such as Japan.

This bill will give the Chinese Communist Party, and other unstable and hostile regimes, control over our energy and mineral needs, putting our economic and national security at risk.

We must not cut off access to the minerals and materials necessary for everyday life and for the protection of our Nation.

I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to seek a bipartisan approach to these two bills, to this rule, not just today, but also in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia just to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act.

I will do this to ensure that the $54.3 billion that Congress appropriated just last month to help schools reopen is, in fact, prioritized to meet the expenses of actually being able to open up schools for in-person learning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), who will explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), the good doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further speakers and at this time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans believe everyone should be treated equally under the law. But H.R. 5 is a radical approach that will have serious, unintended consequences for female athletes, victims of sexual violence, houses of worship, and healthcare professionals. The list goes on and on. Critically, the bill undermines important religious freedom protections.

As for H.R. 803, let's call this what it is. It is a land grab. This is a land grab, which will kill jobs in rural communities. It will leave us vulnerable to hostile nations for our energy and mineral needs. It will restrict access and recreation opportunities for the American public.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.