Equality Caucus Applauds Defeat of Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, the Congressional Equality Caucus released the following statement applauding the defeat of H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025:

“For years, my marriage went unrecognized by the federal government, and when I came to Congress, I had to fight for my husband to be treated like any other member’s spouse,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02), Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. “Now, after targeting their own LGBTQI+ constituents for the past year and a half, House Republicans tried to take us back in time by attempting to pass a bill to discriminate against their LGBTQI+ colleagues and employees in the legislative branch. Marriage equality is the law of the land, and discrimination has no place in this bill, the halls of Congress, or America. I’m glad the House defeated this discriminatory bill.”

BACKGROUND
H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025, contained the following anti-LGBTQI+ rider:

Sec. 213: Creating a license to discriminate against the LGBTQI+ community
This rider creates a license for people and organizations—including those receiving taxpayer funds—to discriminate against LGBTQI+ people under the guise of religious liberty, and it prevents the federal government from adequately responding.

For example, it prohibits the federal government from reducing or terminating a federal contract or grant with an organization that discriminates against LGBTQI+ people if the organization justifies their discrimination based on the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. It similarly prohibits the federal government from reducing or terminating the employment of an employee who discriminates against LGBTQI+ people if the employee justifies their discrimination based on the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

For example:

• If a Capitol Police Officer denied the same-sex spouse of a member of Congress entry to an event open to members and their spouses, the Officer could not be properly penalized for this conduct.
• If a benefits counselor refused to process benefits-related applications and changes for the same-sex spouse of a member of Congress or an employee, the counselor could not be properly penalized for this conduct.
• If a food vendor is contracted to provide meals during new member orientation and their employees refuse to serve the same-sex spouses of members of Congress, the House could not terminate the contract.