[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2727-H2742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NON-
DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 231, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the
District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 231, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 43
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress disapproves of the action of the District of
Columbia Council described as follows: The Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (D.C. Act 20-
593), signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia on
January 25, 2015, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to
section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
on March 6, 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials.
[[Page H2728]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) for
the purpose of controlling the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unfortunately, our thoughts this evening have to be with the ranking
member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Elijah
Cummings, who could not be here due to ongoing events in his Baltimore
district, but his statement strongly opposing H.J. Res. 43 will be
entered into the Record.
Madam Speaker, resentment does not begin to relate our response to
this unprecedented disapproval resolution. Republicans this evening
continue their war on women, but this time, they have added men in the
District of Columbia for good measure.
This resolution is wildly undemocratic. It is a naked violation of
the Nation's founding principle of local control of local affairs, and
it is profoundly offensive to D.C. residents.
This resolution uniquely targets my district, but every Member will
get to vote on it except for me, the District's elected Representative.
Notwithstanding its late-night consideration, Democrats will make
sure Americans understand this inflammatory resolution. For the first
time ever, the House is voting to license employers to discriminate
against employees for their private, constitutionally protected
reproductive health decisions.
For the first time in a quarter of a century, the House is voting to
overturn the law of a local jurisdiction. The D.C. bill stops employers
from job discrimination based on the reproductive health decision of
employees, their spouses, or their dependents.
To name just a few of the horribles permitted by this resolution:
employers may fire a woman for having an abortion due to rape or a man
for using condoms. Or to use actual examples in the United States
today, Emily Herx of Indiana was fired for using in vitro fertilization
to become pregnant. Jennifer Maudlin of Ohio was fired for having
nonmarital sex and becoming pregnant. Christina Dias of Ohio was fired
for using artificial insemination to become pregnant. Shaela Evenson of
Montana was fired for using artificial insemination to become pregnant.
Michelle McCusker of New York was fired for having nonmarital sex and
becoming pregnant.
The D.C. bill is constitutional and legal.
Under the U.S. Constitution, laws may limit religious exercise if
they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a
legitimate governmental interest. The D.C. bill applies to all
employers, does not target religion, and promotes workplace equality.
Under the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, laws may
substantially burden religious exercise if they further a compelling
governmental interest in the least restrictive means. D.C. has a
compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, and the D.C. bill is
the least restrictive means to do so.
The D.C. bill certainly protects religious liberty. The bill is
subject to constitutional and statutory exceptions to discrimination
laws.
The narrow constitutional ministerial exception allows religious
organizations to make employment decisions for ministers and
ministerial employees for any reason whatsoever.
The exception in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which I
enforced as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
permits religious organizations to make employment decisions based on
religion.
{time} 2130
D.C. law permits religious and political organizations to make
employment decisions based on religion and political views; thus,
employers in D.C. may continue to make employment decisions based on
their religious and other beliefs, and their employees must be willing
to carry out the employer's mission and directives with no exceptions.
The D.C. bill does not require employers to provide health insurance;
instead, it requires equal treatment of employees. Both the text and
the legislative history of the D.C. bill make that clear.
Nevertheless, when Members of Congress express concerns, the D.C.
government, in order to eliminate any doubt, passed a new version of
the bill that says, ``This act shall not be construed to require an
employer to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health
decisions.''
This provision is in effect now, but, under the Home Rule Act, a D.C.
bill is not final until the end of the congressional review period. How
absurd is that?
This disapproval resolution is a deliberate abuse of congressional
authority over the district. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act
to give the district the authority to legislate on local matters with a
few enumerated exceptions and ``to relieve Congress of the burden of
legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' D.C. employment
and reproductive health laws are not among those exceptions.
This evening, Madam Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues to live
up to their own recently passed fiscal year 2016 budget which calls for
the Federal Government to let States and cities govern their own
affairs.
``America is a diverse nation. Our cities, States, and local
communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop
solutions that will serve their populations. But far too often, local
leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates,'' so said the
Republicans in their own budget this very year.
I ask the majority to live up to its professed principles of local
control and of local affairs, Federalism and limited government. I urge
Members to vote ``no'' on the disapproval resolution to protect
employees' reproductive health decisions, to protect workplace
equality, and to protect the District's right to self-government as
taxpaying American citizens.
I insert in the Record the President's veto threat on this
resolution.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2015.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.J. Res. 43--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia
Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act of 2014
(Rep. Black (R-TN) and 46 co-sponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 43, which
would overturn the District of Columbia's Reproductive Health
Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (the Act). The Act
added reproductive health decisions to the list of employment
non-discrimination protections included under the basis of
sex, which had previously included pregnancy, childbirth,
related medical conditions, and breastfeeding. By taking away
this newly-added protection, H.J. Res. 43 would undermine the
reproductive freedom and private health care decisions of the
citizens of the District of Columbia. This legislation would
give employers cover to fire employees for the personal
decisions they make about birth control and their
reproductive health. These personal decisions should not
jeopardize anyone's job or terms of employment.
The Act preserves the current exception in the District's
Human Rights Law for religious entities and does not impose
additional requirements on employers, contrary to their
personal beliefs, to provide insurance coverage related to
reproductive health decisions.
H.J. Res 43 would also have the unacceptable effect of
undermining the will of District of Columbia citizens. While
the Home Rule Act of 1973 created a procedure for the
Congress to overturn laws passed by the District of Columbia,
the Congress has not exercised this authority in over two
decades and should refrain from doing so in this
circumstance, as well. The Administration urges the Congress
to adopt the President's FY 2016 Budget proposal allowing the
District to enact local laws and spend local funds in the
same way as other cities and States.
If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 43. his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto this resolution.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here today for two reasons: one, our
constitutional duty assigned to us by the Constitution; and, two, to
maintain the protections that same document ensures for all Americans.
[[Page H2729]]
First, the Constitution mandates Congress oversee the District of
Columbia. Article I, section 8, clause 17 makes clear Congresses
exercises ``exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the
District'' of Columbia.
In that vein, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, which gives the
District some autonomy, but Home Rule also retains the constitutional
duty imposed on Congress to be the ultimate signoff for all of the
District's legislation. That responsibility could not be more important
than today.
The D.C. Council recently passed legislation that affects the hiring
practices of organizations that work to advance certain beliefs. As
passed, the bill fails to acknowledge certain longstanding
constitutional protections of the First Amendment for political and
religious organizations. Because of this, we cannot let this
legislation stand.
Former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray requested the council postpone its
vote on the bill because of its legal problems. In a December 2014
letter, Mayor Gray explained D.C.'s attorney general found that the
bill ``raised serious concerns under the Constitution and under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.''
He went on to say, ``Religious organizations, religiously affiliated
organizations, religiously driven for-profit entities, and political
organizations may have strong First Amendment and Religious Freedom
Restoration Act grounds for challenging the law's application to
them.''
To remedy these problems, the Mayor requested the council include an
exemption to ``protect the religious and political liberty interests
that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are
designed to secure.''
Madam Speaker, I will insert Mayor Gray's December 2, 2014, letter to
the D.C. Council into the Record.
While the council postponed the vote, they took none of the Mayor's
advice. Once again, Mayor Gray wrote the council, again, in mid-
December voicing his disapproval for the bill.
In that letter, he suggested, ``If the council wishes to adopt this
bill, it should clarify the D.C. Human Rights Act's existing exemption
for religious and political organizations to ensure that that exemption
protects the religious and political liberty interests that the First
Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are designed to
secure.''
Mayor Gray concluded that, ``Without this language, I cannot support
the legislation and believe that the council would expose the District
government to costly legal challenges by moving forward.''
Again, Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record Mayor Gray's
December 17, 2014, letter to the D.C. Council.
Despite these warnings, the council and Mayor Bowser ignored the
former Mayor's requests, passed the bill, and sent it to Congress. If
they had taken Mayor Gray's advice, we would not be here today.
Madam Speaker, this law is contrary to the Federal statute, and the
D.C. Council knows it. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in
1993 prevents the government from creating any law, rule, or regulation
that prevents an individual from freely exercising their religion.
Based on this mandate, the Supreme Court recently held that certain
corporations are not required to provide health insurance coverage for
contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs.
From the way it was drafted, it is unclear if the D.C. bill violates
this mandate, making it unconstitutional. Both Mayor Bowser and the
D.C. Council know that this is a problem.
In fact, in February, Mayor Bowser admitted that the bill was
ambiguous and requested the council pass temporary emergency
legislation clarifying that the bill doesn't require employers to
provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions.
Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record Mayor Bowser's February 2,
2015, letter to the D.C. Council.
Madam Speaker, that fix was only temporary and does not address the
constitutional concerns I share with Mayor Gray. Given this ambiguity
and no permanent fix, the bill is unconstitutional and cannot stand,
given the recent Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.
Protecting the freedoms guaranteed by our First Amendment should not
be a partisan issue. Mayor Gray knew this and pointed this out to the
council that it has gone too far.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to speak directly to the claims that
this resolution is somehow an attack on women's health care or their
rights to use contraceptives. These attacks are offensive and are
patently false.
As a registered nurse, I have spent my adult life bringing health
care to women, children, and families. This resolution would in no way
threaten anyone's access to care or freedom from discrimination based
on the use of contraceptives; rather, it simply maintains the status
quo in Washington, D.C., before this misguided law was passed.
Women are already protected from discrimination on the basis of
pregnancy status and a number of other fronts through both D.C. and
Federal law, as they should be.
Specific to concerns regarding how this would impact women using
contraceptives, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission makes clear
``an employer could not discharge a female employee from her job
because she uses contraceptives.'' Those protections would in no way be
impacted if any resolution were to be signed into law.
Madam Speaker, the RHNDA law is fundamentally dishonest. It purports
to be a nondiscrimination act, but it directly targets the fundamental
First Amendment freedoms of employers in our Nation's Capital, the very
city charged with protecting those same freedoms.
We must act to protect religious freedom and to offer relief from
this oppressive RHNDA law.
The ``District of Columbia Lots 36, 41 and 802 in Square 3942 and
Parcels 01430107 and 01430110 Eminent Domain Emergency Authorization
Act of 2014''
I urge the Council to approve the potential use of eminent
domain to acquire Lots 36, 41 and 802 in Square 3942 and
Parcels 01430107 and 01430110 (W Street Site). DC Water
currently operates a site south of N Place, S.E., north of
the Anacostia River and between 1st and Canal Streets, S.E.
(DC Water Site). The District plans to revitalize and develop
a portion of the DC Water Site and leverage other District
investments, such as the South Capitol Street Bridge project
and the Nationals Park, and serve to accelerate and promote
economic vitality in the Capitol Riverfront neighborhood
The District of Columbia and DC Water have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding for DC Water to relocate a
portion of the uses from the DC Water Site to a site in
Prince Georges County. In order to ensure adequate response
times to water and sewer emergencies, DC Water must also
maintain a site west of the Anacostia River.
The W Street Site is currently occupied by a trash transfer
station, and has been considered by many as blight to nearby
communities.
READING AND VOTE ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Bill 20-790, the ``Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act
of 2014''
I urge the Council to postpone voting on this measure until
significant legal concerns expressed by the Office of
Attorney General are resolved. My staff shared with the
Committee on the Judiciary a detailed review of the bill by
OAG that deemed the legislation legally insufficient. The
District of Columbia Human Rights Act (Human Rights Act)
protects many facets of an individual's identity (such as
race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation) from
discrimination. Bill 20-790, the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, would expand these
restrictions by prohibiting employers (and others) from
discriminating against an individual based on that
individual's reproductive health decisions.
According to OAG, the bill raises serious concerns under
the Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993 (RFRA). Religious organizations, religiously-
affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit
entities, and political organizations may have strong First
Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law's
applicability to them. Moreover, to the extent that some of
the bill's language protects only one sex's reproductive
health decisions, that language may run afoul of the Fifth
Amendment's equal protection guarantee. If the Council wishes
to adopt this Bill or similar legislation, it should clarify
the Human Rights Act's existing exemption for religious and
political organizations to ensure that the exemption protects
the religious and political liberty interests that the First
Amendment and RFRA are designed to secure.
While I applaud the goals of this legislation, as currently
drafted, this legislation is legally problematic. I am
committed to working with the Council on language necessary
to make the changes needed.
[[Page H2730]]
Bill 20-48, the ``Civil Asset Forfeiture Amendment Act of 2014''
I support passage of this legislation in Final Reading.
Bill 20-48 creates a freestanding title for civil
forfeitures, which includes sections on seizures, notice,
contesting seizure, interim release of seized property,
filing a complaint, forfeiture proceedings, return of
property, disposal of forfeited property, adoptive seizures,
reporting requirements, remission or mitigation, and the rule
of lenity.
While I continue to have reservations about the limitations
this bill places on the Executive Branch and the Office of
the Attorney General (OAG), I recognize that the forfeiture
of civil assets--and procedures for their timely return to
the owner--is a significant one in the community that is in
need of reform. OAG and the U.S. Attorney's Office worked
with the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety on this
legislation and was successful in making significant
improvements to the requirements included in the legislation.
I appreciate the work that the Committee has undertaken to
include affected parties, and believe that while this
compromise is a good one, future Executives may have to amend
the law if the District experiences challenges with the
procedures the law puts in place.
Bill 20-468, the ``Limitation on the Use of Restraints Act of 2014''
With the amendments circulated on Monday, December 1, I
support passage of this measure. Bill 20-468 limits the use
of restraints on a woman or youth who is known to be pregnant
or in post-partum recovery, including in limited
circumstances while in transport to a medical facility or
while receiving treatment at a medical facility.
The District of Columbia is considered a national leader in
its treatment of pregnant inmates, and I support codifying
existing procedures to continue to be a model to other state
penal institutions. However, I do not want to overly burden
the administration of our detention facilities with
procedures that are unsafe both to inmates and corrections
officers. The amendment being offered today strikes that
balance.
Thank you for the opportunity to express the
Administration's views on these pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Vincent C. Gray.
____
``District of Columbia Lots 36, 41 and 802 in Square 3942 and Parcels
01430107 and 01430110 Eminent Domain Authorization Emergency
Authorization Act of 2014'' and Accompanying Declaration and Temporary
Version
I urge the Council to approve this legislation giving the
Mayor authorization to utilize eminent domain to secure
District ownership of property in Ward 5 that has long been a
source of community complaint. This authorization is
supported by the surrounding neighborhood community. Further,
it does not mandate the use of eminent domain. Councilmember
McDuffie and I agree that having this tool available to the
incoming Administration will be helpful in finalizing the
future of the site.
READING AND VOTE ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Bill 20-790, the ``Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act
of 2014''
I appreciate that the Committee on Judiciary and Public
Safety has worked with the Office of the Attorney General to
make the bill legally sufficient. However, it is my
understanding that additional language which would correct
significant legal concerns will not be offered today.
While I support the intent of the bill, without the
amendment, the Bill raises serious concerns under the
Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993 (RFRA). Religious organizations, religiously-
affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit
entities, and political organizations may have strong First
Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law's
applicability to them. Moreover, to the extent that some of
the Bill's language protects only one sex's reproductive
health decisions, that language may run afoul of the Fifth
Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
If the Council wishes to adopt this Bill or similar
legislation, it should clarify the Human Rights Act's
existing exemption for religious and political organizations
to ensure that the exemption protects the religious and
political liberty interests that the First Amendment and RFRA
are designed to secure. Without this language, I cannot
support the legislation and believe that the Council would
expose the District government to costly legal challenges by
moving forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to express the
Administration's views on these pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Vincent C. Gray.
____
``H Street, N.E., Retail Priority Area Clarification Emergency
Declaration Resolution of 2015;'' ``H Street, N.E., Retail Priority
Area Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2015;'' and ``H Street,
N.E., Retail Priority Area Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of
2015''
I urge the Council to support this legislation. The
``Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Act of 2014'' and
subsequent emergency legislation amended the Bladensburg
Road, N.E., Retail Priority Area and included it into the H
Street, N.E., Retail Priority Area. The ``H Street, N.E.,
Retail Priority Area Incentive Emergency Amendment Act of
2014'' amended the criteria for eligible retail development
projects eligible to receive grants, but ambiguity remains on
the clarity and accuracy of the legislation amending the
criteria for eligible retail development projects eligible to
receive grants. This emergency legislation addresses those
immediate concerns before the next grant cycle, which
concludes at the end of February 2015.
``Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Clarification Emergency
Declaration Amendment Act of 2015;'' ``Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2015;'' and
``Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Clarification Temporary
Amendment Act of 2015''
Finally, I would like to draw the Council's attention to
legislation circulated by the Chairman on my behalf to
address legal concerns in Bill 20-790, the ``Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014.'' The
attached emergency legislation, which was circulated on
Friday, January 30, will repeal and replace language from the
underlying bill to make clear that it does not impose any new
insurance requirements on employers related to reproductive
health decisions. This emergency legislation ensures that the
District will remain in compliance with Federal and
Constitutional law. I urge the Council to agendize the
emergency at its next legislative meeting.
Thank you for the opportunity to express the
Administration's views on these pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser.
____
Chairman Phil Mendelson at the Request of the Mayor
A Bill in the Council of the District of Columbia
To amend, on an emergency basis, the Human Rights Act of
1977 to provide a clarification that the prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of sex shall not be construed to
require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to
a reproductive health decision.
Be it enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia,
That this act may be cited as the ``Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of
2015''.
Sec. 2. Reproductive health choices clarification.
(a) Section 105(a) of the Human Rights Act of 1977,
effective July 17, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-8; D.C. Official Code
Sec. 2-1401.05(a)), is amended as follows:
``(a) For the purposes of interpreting this act,
discrimination on the basis of sex shall include, but not be
limited to, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, or
reproductive health decisions; provided that this act shall
not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance
coverage related to a reproductive health decision.''.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I point out that, far from not
discriminating, I have named five women in five different States who
have been discriminated against because of language precisely of the
kind the District of Columbia bill needs to avoid.
It is true that the former Mayor and the former attorney general had
some issues with the bill. They are no longer in office. Nevertheless,
the current Mayor and the current city council have reviewed those
issues.
May I say that the Mayor never offered any examples of the kind of
interference with religious or other rights. He was referring to the
council, and the Mayor, nevertheless, reviewed his objections, and
unanimously, the D.C. City Council and Mayor Bowser have, in fact,
endorsed this bill.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
This is a new low in the war on women. Women have been fired for
using in vitro fertilization and fired for being pregnant before they
are married. This isn't some hypothetical or a cautious story from the
1950s. This is happening in America in the 21st century.
The D.C. Council voted unanimously to protect workers from this type
of discrimination because it understands what House Republicans must
not, that employees should be judged by their performance, not their
reproductive healthcare choices.
Madam Speaker, hard-working women already have enough on their plate,
from making 78 cents on the dollar compared to men, to acting as
caregivers without paid family and medical leave. The majority doesn't
even have
[[Page H2731]]
the courage to bring up this bill in the light of day.
Congress should be focused on growing the economy and providing
opportunity for all Americans, not making women fear that they might be
fired if their employer does not approve of contraception or the manner
in which they conceive children.
{time} 2145
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Flores), the cosponsor of this bill, the chair of the
Republican Study Committee, and someone who has worked very hard on
this legislation.
Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43, to formally
disapprove of the recent measure passed by the District of Columbia
that clearly violates religious liberty.
I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, for her work on
this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to join her in
reaffirming Congress' commitment to protecting our First Amendment
rights.
Despite its name, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act does, in fact, discriminate against those who exercise
their right to live according to their religious beliefs. The D.C.
measure tells values-based organizations that they may no longer live
and work according to the very principles that they advocate. A
Christian school would be required to pay for health insurance policies
that include provisions that violate the beliefs that they teach their
students. In addition, a pro-life organization would be forced to hire
individuals regardless of their commitment to pro-life values.
Simply put, the D.C. Council measure compels Americans to act in
clear violation of their conscience. In doing so, they ignore the
opinion of most Americans, Supreme Court precedent, and the First
Amendment to our Constitution.
More than 80 percent of Americans agree that individuals should be
free to run their businesses and their organizations according to their
beliefs, without the government telling them what to do. In 2013, the
Supreme Court upheld that opinion, ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
that employers have the right to operate their businesses according to
their religious beliefs and principles.
Most importantly, however, the freedom of belief is enshrined in the
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Freedom of
belief is the cornerstone of America's founding principles. It was the
promise of religious freedom that spurred the first generation of
immigrants to come here, and it is the practice of religious freedom
that has brought people from all over the world, from all races and
creeds, to our shores ever since.
Religious freedom may be one of our oldest tenets and oldest
principles, but it is one we must constantly strive and work to defend.
This is not about one city or even one piece of legislation. Other
cities or States may be considering similar measures, and doing nothing
will only embolden those who would violate religious liberty.
We need to make clear, Madam Speaker, where the House stands on this
important issue. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join the
gentlewoman from Tennessee and me in supporting today's resolution.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to correct the gentleman that the church would have to buy
insurance to cover abortion, the church is completely--every church is
completely--exempt from this law. Or, as he indicated, that a pro-
choice group would have to hire a candidate who believes in abortion,
on the contrary, a pro-choice group can ask a candidate if that
candidate is willing to carry out the mission of the organization
against abortion, and if that candidate has any compunction, that
candidate can, indeed, be refused employment; and if such a person is
on staff, that person can be fired. You cannot be on somebody's staff
and then take a position against the mission of that business or
organization.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my good friend.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, this resolution
is an insult to women everywhere. What business is it of an employer--
or anyone else, for that matter--to know whether or not workers or
their daughters are taking birth control? It is absolutely none of
their business.
And it also makes a mockery of the majority party's oft repeated
claims that it wishes to scale back the overreach of the Federal
Government, yet here they are reaching into personal lives.
And the resolution is being proposed by the so-called party of
states' rights. They are not proposing a Federal law. They are trying
to override the decisions of elected officials in the District of
Columbia.
Why should the Congress have the right to override the democratic
decisions of people in our Nation's Capital? A city with more people
than the State of Wyoming and larger than Vermont gets no voting
Senators or Congressmember in this body.
This offensive effort to intrude into the most intimate of decisions
of a woman's life sends a loud and clear message from the majority that
they think a woman's employer does get a say in a woman's reproductive
healthcare choices, even though the Supreme Court, the Constitution,
and women all across this country think that they do not.
This resolution would give an employer coercive power to intrude on a
woman's private decisions about birth control, in vitro fertilization,
and abortion. They are activities that obviously happen off the job and
decisions that have no bearing whatsoever on a person's ability to do
her job.
The District of Columbia's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act does not diminish the right of religious freedom. This
new D.C. law is modest in its scope. It simply protects an employee's
right to self-determination. It handles a perceived conflict between
two differing claims to rights in a simple and straightforward way.
I urge a ``no'' vote to this new low and public policy.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is an insult to women everywhere.
What business is it of an employer--or anyone else for that matter--
to know whether or not workers or their daughters are taking birth
control? It is none of your business.
And it also makes a mockery of the majority party's oft repeated
claims that it wishes to scale back what it calls the overreach of the
Federal government this offensive effort to intrude into the most
intimate of decisions of a woman's life--sends a loud and clear message
from the Majority that they think a woman's employer does get a say in
a woman's reproductive health care choices.
Even though the Supreme Court, the Constitution and women all across
the country think you don't.
This resolution would give an employer coercive power to intrude on a
woman's private decisions about birth control, in vitro fertilization,
and abortion.
They are activities that obviously happen off the job and decisions
that have no bearing whatsoever on a woman's ability to do her job.
The District of Columbia's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act does not diminish the right of religious freedom.
This new DC law is modest in its scope--it simply protects a
employee's right to self-determination.
It handles a perceived conflict between two differing claims to
rights in a simple and straightforward way.
An employer has the right to hold whatever belief his conscience
dictates--but he does not have the right to discriminate against
employees based on their private choice to use birth control, in vitro
fertilization, or abortion.
The DC law received a unanimous vote on the DC Council and was even
revised to make it clear that it would not force an employer to provide
insurance coverage for contraceptive or abortion coverage.
And while this resolution might just affect women and their families
here in our nation's capital, women across the U.S. should be very much
alarmed: Because if this resolution stands--Can there be any doubt--
they're coming for you next.
[[Page H2732]]
I urge my colleagues to consider the ways this resolution would
threaten the jobs and economic security of hardworking DC residents,
and to oppose this absurd, discriminatory resolution.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has been a big
protector of life and has been a good colleague of mine since our
election in 2010.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res.
43, and I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee and the gentleman from
Texas for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. This
resolution would prevent the District of Columbia from violating
America's basic First Amendment freedom of religion.
We must protect pro-life organizations in D.C. and allow them to
operate according to their sincerely held beliefs. The D.C. City
Council's actions would have serious negative consequences for
religious organizations operating in D.C., and religious or pro-life
groups could be forced to make personnel decisions that are
inconsistent with their moral convictions. Additionally, these actions
will force employers to defend against lawsuits of questionable merit
brought with a political motivation.
Our Nation's Capital should not be a place where people's freedoms
are taken away; it should be a place where the right to live according
to your beliefs is most fervently protected. We must respect and
protect the religious freedoms established by the Constitution and the
Federal law. We must reject the overreach by the D.C. City Council.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 43.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I must reject the gentlewoman's desire to protect
organizations or residents in D.C. No resident in D.C. has asked any
Member of this body to protect them except the Member standing before
you, and that Member can't even protect them with a vote on this floor.
This bill was passed unanimously by the D.C. City Council. If there
is any objection to this bill, D.C. residents will repair to the
courts, who are the only authorities who can tell us what is
constitutional and what is not constitutional.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the
distinguished Delegate from the District of Columbia. I thank her for
her courageous, relentless, persistent, effective leadership and
representation of the District of Columbia.
I come to the floor, Madam Speaker, to ask several questions. I think
they have to be addressed to you.
How many times have our Republican colleagues come to this floor to
express their belief in reducing the role of government, of the Federal
Government? How many times have they come to the floor to preach their
deference to states' rights and local government? And how many times
have these House Republicans thrown all of that out the window when it
comes to meddling, government meddling in the reproductive choices of
America's families?
Here we are with Republicans who disapprove a duly passed D.C. law in
order to enable businesses to fire their employees for the reproductive
health decisions that they make. And not only that, not only the
decision that the employee makes, but the decision that a spouse makes
or a dependent, a child, makes.
Allowing employers to fire employees for using birth control or in
vitro fertilization, which answers the prayers of so many families, or
any other reproductive health service is an outrageous intrusion into
workers' personal lives.
This is Hobby Lobby on steroids. This is about a business firing
someone--man or woman--for private health decisions with no bearing on
the workplace. In fact, if Republicans have their way, employers would
not need to cite religion at all to discriminate against employees for
their reproductive decisions.
House Republicans--and I say House Republicans, Madam Speaker,
because this isn't what Republicans think throughout the country. House
Republicans need to recognize that personal healthcare choices are not
your boss' business. A business has no right to threaten its employees
for their reproductive choices or for the reproductive choices made by
members of their families.
I keep saying it over and over. House Republicans have no business
using this House of Representatives to enable such appalling
discrimination. I urge my colleagues to stand against this radical
assault on the rights of workers and families here in D.C.
Again, how many times have we seen our House Republican colleagues
come to the floor to speak of their belief in reducing the role of the
Federal Government? Not so fast, families of the District of Columbia.
This doesn't mean you.
With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus. He
is a cosponsor of this bill, and he is a defender of life.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, let me just say at the outset
to my friend, the former Speaker for whom I have the highest regard, it
is always appropriate to defend to the best extent possible the fragile
lives of unborn children from the violence of abortion, and it is
always appropriate to defend to the greatest degree possible conscience
rights when they are under assault. That is why I, along with many of
my colleagues, rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43, to disapprove of
D.C. legislation that infringes on the First Amendment freedoms of
religious charities and pro-life advocacy groups in the District of
Columbia.
I especially want to thank Congresswoman Diane Black for her
consistent and highly effective leadership over many years for
fundamental conscience rights and for attempting to respect human life
to the greatest extent possible.
{time} 2200
I agree with six distinguished law professors--and I will include
their letters fully in the Record--who wrote the D.C. Council last
November and who said:
``RHNDA's attempt to prevent employers from making decisions based on
their 'personal beliefs' implies that the State has the power to judge
what are and are not legitimate 'personal beliefs' and to conclude that
religiously motivated opposition to State policies is unacceptable. The
Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that employers, not the State,
may determine which religious practices they use as the basis for their
organization's policies.''
The Secretary of Education for the Archdiocese of Washington wrote
every Member of Congress, and he said:
``RHNDA would force religious institutions, including the 20 Catholic
schools in the District of Columbia that I oversee, to hire or retain
employees who publicly act in defiance of the mission of their
employer. It would subjugate the church's moral teaching to the moral
views of the government.''
The National Right to Life Committee, which has its national
headquarters right here in the District, said:
``It would be intolerable for an advocacy organization such as ours
to be required to hire or prohibit from firing a person who makes a
'decision' to engage in advocacy or any other activity that is directly
antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil
rights of the unborn.''
Christian and Muslim leaders also wrote a letter in which they
pointed out:
``We come together to oppose RHNDA. We believe it would infringe on
religious employers' freedom to make employment decisions when
necessary to preserve their religious mission and identity.''
Catholic University president John Garvey, a very, very distinguished
president of Catholic U. and whom I literally had up in hearings to
speak out against anti-Semitism, said:
``This bill would require all employers, including religious schools
such as ours, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance
of our mission. It would take away our right to carry
[[Page H2733]]
out our mission through personnel policies and practices that are
rooted in our faith. The D.C. bill carries no exemption or language of
tolerance.''
Again, I would agree with former Mayor Vincent Gray in that it raises
serious First Amendment concerns in the Constitution.
April 29, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative, I am writing to urge your support of
the House Joint Resolution 43, disapproving the Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act in the United States
House of Representatives.
The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act
would force religious institutions, including the 20 Catholic
schools in the District of Columbia that I oversee, to hire
or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of the
mission of their employer. It would subjugate the Church's
moral teaching to the moral views of the government,
violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and result in
discrimination against religious believers. Practically
speaking, Catholic schools would be obliged to keep teachers
that sow confusion among schoolchildren by engaging in
conduct that is contrary to Catholic teaching on the
fundamental dignity of human life from the moment of
conception. The Archdiocese of Washington has long respected
home rule for the District of Columbia and, therefore,
advocated for our constitutional rights with the D.C. Council
and Mayor. However, they moved forward despite our objections
forcing us to appeal to the United States Congress to restore
our freedoms.
Accordingly the Archdiocese of Washington joins other
religious institutions, faith-based organizations and pro-
life advocacy groups urging you and your colleagues to defend
our freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of
association in the Nation's Capital.
Please vote for House Joint Resolution 43 disapproving the
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. Thank
You.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Burnford, D.Min.
Secretary for Education.
____
The Catholic University of America, Office of the
President,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative, I urge you to vote for House Joint
Resolution 43 when it reaches the floor today. The bill would
express the House's disapproval of the Reproductive Health
Non-Discrimination Act passed by the D.C. Council.
That bill would require all employers, including religious
schools such as ours, to hire or retain employees who
publicly act in defiance of our mission. It would take away
our right to carry out our mission through personnel policies
and practices that are rooted in our faith.
The D.C. bill carries no exemption or language of tolerance
that would acknowledge or accommodate the religious and
associational freedoms protected by the First Amendment. It
places the preferences of the government above the Church's
teaching on important matters.
I recognize the significance of Congress's acting to
disapprove a bill passed by the D.C. Council and urge you to
take this unusual step only because of the great impact the
bill would have on our ability freely to operate this
University. I am grateful for your support
Sincerely,
John Garvey,
President.
____
November 5, 2014.
Hon. Phil Mendelson,
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mendelson: We are college and university
professors opposed to the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Act of 2014 (RHNDA). It seeks to amend Sec. 2.
Section 211 (D.C. Official Code Sec. 2-1402.11) of the Human
Rights Act of 1977, effective December 13, 1977 (D.C. Law 2-
38; D.C. Official Code Sec. 201401.01 et seq) (the Act) to
read: ``An employer or employment agency shall not
discriminate against an individual with respect to
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because of or on the basis of the individual's or a
dependent's reproductive health decision making, including a
decision to use or access a particular drug, device or
medical service, because of or on the basis of an employer's
personal beliefs about such services.''
We are convinced that RHNDA violates the federal Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which governs the District's
policies on the restriction of religious freedoms. RFRA is
not limited to institutions owned by religious organizations,
but extends to closely-held corporations whose owners' free
exercise of religion is burdened by state regulation. Burwell
v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 (U.S. June 30, 2014).
The Act currently contains an exemption for religious
organizations and organizations ``operated, supervised or
controlled by or in connection with a religious . . .
organization'' (Sec. 2-1401.3). RHNDA appears aimed at owners
of entities like Hobby Lobby, whose owners would seek the
same exemption offered religious organizations and their
subsidiaries. The standard that RFRA stipulates, that the
government may burden religious practice of owners of
closely-held corporations only when it is advancing a
compelling state interest by means that are the least
restrictive to the affected religious practice, is ignored by
the proposed legislation.
RHNDA proposes to overturn the long-standing recognition of
the right of religious employers to run their enterprises
according to their religious beliefs. RHNDA's attempt to
prevent employers from making decisions based on their
``personal beliefs'' implies that the state has the power to
judge what are, and are not, legitimate ``personal beliefs''
and to conclude that religiously-motivated opposition to
state policies is unacceptable. The Supreme Court has
unanimously affirmed that employers, not the state, may
determine which religious practices they use as the basis for
their organizations' policies. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical
Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 6.
We oppose passage of the RHNDRA and urge you and your
colleagues to reject this bill.
Signed,
Professor George W. Dent, Jr.,
Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Robert A. Destro,
Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic
University of America.
John Farina,
Associate Prof. of Religious Studies, George Mason
University.
Robert P. George,
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University.
John C. Hirsh,
Professor of English, Georgetown University.
Frank A. Orban III,
Institute of World Politics (Ret.).
____
April 30, 2015.
Re nullify the D.C. ``Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination'' law.
Dear Member of Congress: The National Right to Life
Committee, the nationwide federation of state right-to-life
organizations, urges you to vote in favor of H. J. Res. 43, a
resolution introduced by Congresswoman Black to nullify the
so-called ``Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment
Act'' (RHNDA) in the District of Columbia. NRLC intends to
include the roll call on H. J. Res. 43 in our scorecard of
key pro-life votes of the 114th Congress.
The RHNDA prohibits employers within the District from
engaging in ``discrimination'' on the basis of ``decisions''
reached by employees, or potential employees, regarding
``reproductive health'' matters. It is not disputed that
abortion is among the matters encompassed by the term
``reproductive health'' as used in the new law. The scope of
the RHNDA is very broad, covering any ``decisions'' that are
``related to the use . . . of a particular . . . medical
service . . .'' [emphasis added].
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) advocates for
recognition that each unborn child is a member of the human
family, and that each abortion stops a beating heart and ends
the life of a developing human being. That viewpoint is
shared by many women who once believed otherwise and
submitted to abortions, and by many men who once believed
otherwise and were complicit in abortion; such persons number
among the most committed activists within our organization
and other pro-life organizations. Yet it would be intolerable
for an advocacy organization such as ours to be required to
hire, or prohibited from firing, a person who makes a
``decision'' to engage in advocacy or any other activity that
is directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully
advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.
Under the RHNDA, using any ``decision . . . related to''
abortion to inform decisions about hiring, firing, or
benefits (among other things) would expose our organization
both to enforcement actions by the District government
bureaucracy, and to private lawsuits (some of which would
likely be engendered by ``sting'' operations by pro-abortion
advocates).
Some have suggested that we would be protected from such
results by a clause in the pre-existing D.C. Human Rights Act
that makes narrow allowance for ``giving preference to
persons of the same religion or political persuasion'' as a
controlling ``religious or political organization.'' But NRLC
is neither a political nor a religious organization as those
terms are used in the law. NRLC is not ``operated, supervised
or controlled by'' any religious institution or political
party, as the law requires to claim the narrow exemption.
Moreover, our staff is made up of persons who are personally
affiliated with a wide variety of religious bodies,
[[Page H2734]]
or with none, and persons who belong to a variety of
political parties, or to none.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress
shall ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever'' with respect to the seat of government, the
federal District. Therefore, the RHNDA has been enacted with
legal authority delegated to the District Council by
Congress; that local body has no other political authority
whatever under the Constitution. It follows that members of
Congress are responsible for, and accountable for, abuses of
the legal authority that Congress has delegated to District
officials. The RHNDA is just such an abuse of delegated
power--it is a politically motivated attack on our
organization and the other organizations that seek to
vindicate the human rights of unborn children.
The roll call on H. J. Res. 43, the resolution of
disapproval, will be accurately described in our scorecard
and in reports to our national membership as a fair reading
of where each Member of the House of Representatives stands
regarding a blatantly political attack on the pro-life
movement.
Respectfully,
Douglas D. Johnson,
Legislative Director.
Susan T. Muskett, J.D.,
Senior Legislative Counsel.
____
Hon. Phil Mendelson,
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mendelson: We represent the city's broad and
diverse faith community. We may believe and practice our
faith differently. We may have divergent positions on
important issues. However we all agree that faith communities
have a right to freely exercise their religion and a
responsibility to promote and protect this important freedom.
We believe religious freedom is not only our priority, but
also a priority in our society.
We come together then to oppose the Reproductive Health
Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. We believe it would
infringe upon religious employers' freedom to make employment
decisions when necessary to preserve their religious mission
and identity. In doing so, the legislation would allow for
unjust and unnecessary government interference into religious
employers' governance and operations.
While religious employers do not police employees' or
dependents' private reproductive health decisions, these
employers must have the freedom to respond to employees'
public behavior repudiating their religious mission and
identity.
We believe that the legislation would in fact discriminate
against religious employers in a manner prohibited by the
significant constitutional and legal protections provided to
religious organizations in the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
We respectfully request that you oppose the Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. We pray that you
will be fair and reasonable in your considerations of our
sincere concerns. We will follow up with you with regard to
these priority concerns.
Sincerely,
Reverend Patrick Walker, President, Baptist Convention of
D.C. and Vicinity; Reverend Susan Taylor, National Public
Affairs Director, Church of Scientology National Affairs
Office; Talib M. Shareef, CMSgt, USAF-Retired, Imam/
President, The Nation's Mosque, Masjid Muhammad; Reverend
Kendrick E. Curry, Pastor, Pennsylvania Avenue Baptist
Church--DuPont Park; Reverend Dr. George C. Gilbert, Pastor,
Holy Trinity United Baptist Church--Hillbrook; Reverend A.C.
Durant, Pastor, Tenth Street Baptist Church--Shaw; Reverend
Sylvia Stanard, Minister, Church of Scientology; Reverend Lee
Holzinger, Minister, Church of Scientology; Reverend
Monsignor Robert Panke, Rector, Saint John Paul II Seminary--
Brookland; Reverend William Byrne, Secretary of Pastoral
Ministry and Social Concerns, Archdiocese of Washington.
Michael Scott, Director, D.C. Catholic Conference; Reverend
Frederick Close, Pastor, St. Anthony Catholic Church--
Brookland; Reverend Adam Y. Park, Pastor, Epiphany Catholic
Church--Georgetown; Reverend Michael Briese, Pastor, Holy
Name Catholic Church--Capitol Hill North; Reverend Monsignor
Godfrey T. Mosley, Pastor, St. Ann Catholic Church--
Tenleytown; Reverend Mark R. Ivany, Pastor, Assumption
Catholic Church--Congress Heights; Reverend Michael J.
Kelley, Pastor, St. Martin Catholic Church--Bloomingdale;
Monsignor Raymond G. East, Pastor, St. Teresa of Avila
Catholic Church--Anacostia; Reverend William Gurnee, Director
of Spiritual Formation, Saint John Paul II Seminary--
Brookland.
Monsignor John Enzler, President and CEO, Catholic
Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington; Reverend Henry A.
Gaston, Pastor, Johnson Memorial Baptist Church; Reverend
Beth Akiyama, Minister, Church of Scientology; Reverend Kay
Holzinger, Minister, Church of Scientology; Reverend Mario E.
Dorsonville, Vice President of Mission and Immigration
Outreach, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of
Washington; Reverend Avelino A. Gonzalez, Director,
Ecumenical and Inter-Faith Affairs Archdiocese of Washington;
Reverend Monsignor Ronald W. Jameson, Rector, Cathedral of
Saint Matthew the Apostle--DuPont Circle; Reverend Monsignor
James D. Watkins, Pastor, Immaculate Conception Catholic
Church--Shaw; Reverend Monsignor Paul Langsfeld, Pastor, St.
Joseph's Catholic Church on Capitol Hill.
Reverend Gregory Schommer, O.P., Pastor, St. Dominic
Catholic Church--Southwest Waterfront; Reverend Andrew F.
Royals; Reverend Mark R. Ivany, Pastor, St. Benedict the Moor
Catholic Church--Kingman Park; Reverend Ron Potts, Pastor,
Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament--Chevy Chase; Reverend
Thomas Franks, S.S.J., Pastor, Our Lady of Perpetual Help
Catholic Church--Buena Vista; Reverend Cornelius Kelechi
Ejiogu, S.S.J., Pastor, St. Luke Catholic Church--Marshall
Heights; Reverend Alfred J. Harris, Pastor, St Mary Mother of
God Catholic Church--Chinatown; Reverend Evelio Menjivar,
Pastor, Our Lady Queen of the Americas--Kalorama; Reverend
Richard Mullins, Pastor, St. Thomas Apostle Catholic Church--
Woodley Park; Reverend Raymond M. Moore, Pastor, St. Thomas
More Catholic Church--Washington Highlands; Monsignor Charles
Pope, Pastor, Holy Comforter-Saint Cyprian Catholic Church--
Capitol Hill.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, a pro-life organization can hire or fire anyone it wants
to. If that person opposes the mission of the pro-life organization,
the pro-life organization does not have to hire that person and may
fire that person.
Another matter that has to be corrected is that the D.C.
discrimination law provides that nothing in the act--the act under
discussion here--prohibits religious and political organizations from
limiting employment or admission to or giving preference to persons of
the same religion or political persuasion as calculated by that
organization to promote the religious or political principles for which
it is established or maintained.
That is the text.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), my friend.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I thank the gentlewoman from D.C.
Madam Speaker, I stand today in opposition to this resolution.
I want to make clear the consequences of the misguided resolution
that we are considering today because it is not about religious
freedom; it is about the freedom to make incredibly personal and
significant decisions without having to consult your boss.
I have recently experienced the joy of becoming a mother for the
first time. This miracle was not possible without the aid of in vitro
fertilization. Given the excess radiation exposure I received during
treatment for my combat-related amputations, this was the only way I
would ever have a child.
Every woman in this country should have the same opportunity to start
a family, and no woman should ever be fired for doing so. This should
be common sense. Unfortunately, the resolution before us today would
remove the legal protections ensuring that this is the case in D.C.
The law we are voting to disapprove today would prevent stories like
that of Emily Herx's, a language arts teacher at a Catholic school in
Indiana. She was fired after school authorities discovered that she and
her husband used in vitro fertilization to try to have a child. They
sought IVF treatments after learning that she suffered from a medical
condition that caused infertility. She was told that the procedure was
contrary to church teachings, and, as a result, her teaching contract
would not be renewed. Last December, a jury sided with her, awarding
her damages in the case.
Employees like Emily Herx should be judged at work based on their job
performances, not on private decisions they make with their families
and doctors. That is exactly what the D.C. Council intended to ensure
in passing their resolution to protect women in the District.
I urge all Members to oppose this attempt by the majority to limit
the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. In this day and
age, the last thing we should be doing is punishing couples who are
having difficulty in starting a family.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), one of our freshmen and a cosponsor of the
bill.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J.
Res. 43, to protect different organizations from having to choose
between their faiths and their jobs.
This is not a war on women. It is an outright war on religious
liberties.
[[Page H2735]]
Forcing people to participate in offensive acts in order to stay in
business is unconstitutional, and the D.C. Council has wholeheartedly
interfered with the rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution. It
is not a crime for individuals or organizations to exercise their First
Amendment right. Respecting religious liberties when it can be
reasonably accommodated is both common sense and constitutional.
As Congress, we have a duty to disapprove of what the D.C. Council
has done, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains
on my side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 11 minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of
our committee.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, we have an
obligation to fight discrimination wherever it exists and in whatever
form it exists.
This resolution would allow employers to discriminate against
employees who make decisions based on the interests of their health and
their families. If employers don't like the personal health care
decisions that their employees make, this resolution would allow
employers to fire them.
Is it right to allow employers to fire women who use contraception or
who try to conceive through in vitro fertilization?
Employees should be judged on their job performances and nothing
else, especially not on their private medical decisions. Nobody has the
right to interfere with those decisions--nobody--not an employer, not
the House of Representatives, not any of us.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I first want to start by thanking my
ranking member, Mr. Elijah Cummings. I feel for him and for his city
and what they are having to go through in Baltimore. I know he would
have liked to have been here, but I have the utmost respect for him,
and I wish nothing but the best for the people of Baltimore. I thank
him for the decorum we have had and for the success we have had thus
far on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We have had good
debates. We have disagreed on issues, but I think we have probably
agreed on most issues that we have had come before us.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from the District, who cares
passionately about her service and the people of Washington, D.C., and
I know it comes from her heart as she speaks about these. We have had
good success on our committee in having these vigorous debates but
having done so in a professional manner, and I thank her for that kind
of discussion that we have had. Again, I know that she speaks from her
heart on this.
Madam Speaker, we do believe that this was a timely and appropriate
bill to bring up. I know that it doesn't happen very often. It is not a
common occurrence. That is because a lot of what Washington, D.C., does
and passes is not something that is of any controversy whatsoever. Yet,
when you have the attorney general for the District of Columbia saying
this has problems with the Constitution and problems in the law and
when you have Mayor Gray making the same case that this has problems, I
hope that both sides will recognize, no matter how they vote, that this
law that was transmitted to the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee--to Congress--is problematic, and they have admitted as such.
They know that it is problematic, and I think we have a role and a
responsibility to add our voice to that. That is what the Constitution
calls for.
The Constitution makes it clear that Congress does have the ability
to exercise the ultimate legislative authority over the District of
Columbia. In the typical case, Congress plays no part in it as the
overwhelming majority of pieces of legislation that get transmitted to
us continue to sail on, but the RHNDA legislation, as passed by the
D.C. Council, has left us with no choice but to act.
The bill affects the hiring practices of all D.C. employers, but it
provides no exemption for religious or political organizations that
work to advance certain beliefs regarding reproductive health. Because
of this, the bill fails to ensure that protections are guaranteed under
the First Amendment.
As I said before, former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, wrote
the D.C. Council twice, warning that this bill was unconstitutional. To
fix the problem, Mayor Gray recommended the council include an
exemption for religious or political organizations, but the council and
the current mayor ignored Mayor Gray's request, which would have
alleviated the constitutional concerns. She ignored that. The current
mayor ignored that. If they had taken Mayor Gray's advice, I don't
think we would be standing here today, talking about this bill.
Washington, D.C.'s current mayor, Ms. Bowser, also saw the problems
with the bill. She requested the council pass temporary--and that is
important, ``temporary''--emergency legislation clarifying the bill
doesn't require an employer to provide insurance coverage for
reproductive health decisions that an employer does not agree with.
That is an important part of this discussion, but the legislation is
only temporary. The bill remains unclear as to what it requires the
D.C. employers to cover.
The other point that I would put in place here is that Washington,
D.C., has been a city for a long time--for a couple hundred years, I
think--and this legislation has not been in place. We are not trying to
erase something. We are saying that the bill that was transmitted to us
is problematic, and there are ways to remedy and fix that. Some would
say, well, it has been fixed by this temporary--again, temporary--piece
of legislation, but that hasn't been transmitted to us. The D.C.
Council had an opportunity to provide us with that temporary
legislation, but they didn't. Maybe they will in the future--I don't
know--but that is not the bill that is before us today.
What I am arguing for is the same thing in concept as from the
Washington, D.C., attorney general. It is the same thing in concept
that D.C. Mayor Gray has said, and it is the same thing, quite frankly,
that the current mayor has argued is problematic, because she wanted to
clarify that the very arguments we hear back to us are that their bill
doesn't actually do that, that we are not trying to effect that--in
essence, saying that we are right, that we are not trying to get into
this dangerous, unprecedented territory which a lot of us find
offensive.
Madam Speaker, I think what we have done is very reasonable in our
approach. We have very differing approaches and mindsets. I get that,
but I do appreciate the debate. That is what we are supposed to be
doing in Congress.
I appreciate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and,
certainly, our ranking member, Mr. Cummings. He is a good man, and he
is in a tough situation. Again, our thoughts and prayers are with him
and with the people of Baltimore and of Maryland. I would hope they
would look to his leadership and what he is telling the people, which
is to calmly, calmly discuss these issues as we are calmly discussing
these issues here tonight.
Again, I urge the passage of this. I think it is an appropriate thing
to do, and it is a timely thing to do. The clock has run out. We only
have 30 days. The time is right upon us, so I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this resolution tonight.
{time} 2215
Finally, I will say I really do appreciate Mrs. Black for her heart
and passion on this issue and the good work that she has done. She
cares deeply about these issues. We all do.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and say that I do want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Chaffetz, for the way he has run the committee and especially with
respect to this controversial legislation. He has allowed members to
speak. It has been a very civil repartee on both sides.
I would like to offer that I have already read the text of D.C. law
that exempts both religious and political organizations from limiting
employment
[[Page H2736]]
in the way that other employers must, that they may hire based on their
religious views and their political views. Pro-life organizations are
protected; churches are protected.
The continuous citation of the former Mayor and the former attorney
general would make you think that they were still in office. The
council did, in fact, look once again at their objections, finding that
their objections had already been taken care of in prior D.C. law. The
council then unanimously passed the bill again.
It is painful to hear the insurance matter cited against the District
of Columbia because the only reason it isn't final law is because the
District of Columbia has to transmit to this body every law, and it has
to lay over for at least 30 days before it becomes final. If we had our
way, if we had the same rights that every other Member has whose
district is in the United States of America, it would already be law.
It shouldn't be cited against us.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Lawrence), a member of the committee.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I address you today in strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 43. The resolution undermines the purpose of
the D.C. Council antidiscrimination bill. D.C. residents deserve to be
protected from discrimination in the workplace. Everyone should have
the ability to make a private healthcare decision, including when and
how they will start a family, and without the fear of losing their jobs
or facing retaliation or retribution from their employer.
Unfortunately, women across the country have faced discrimination for
personal decisions such as using birth control, becoming pregnant while
unmarried, or using in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. Contrary
to claims by my Republican colleagues, this bill does not impose any
new requirements on employers to cover or to pay for any reproductive
health services.
Are women's rights not guaranteed by the Constitution just like those
of men in this country? This is not about whether you or I have an
abortion or whether you or I use IVF. Madam Speaker, this is about a
woman's right to choose what is right for them in the privacy of their
homes and doctor's office and with their family. This is not about pro-
choice or pro-life. This is about religious freedom. This is about
government intrusion.
This resolution, forced on the people of D.C. by a Member of Congress
from Tennessee, flies in the face of the democratic debate and vote
already heard by the D.C. Council. This resolution preserves the
current exemption in the D.C. human rights laws for religious
organizations and does not impose any additional requirements on
employers based on their religious belief.
I stand here today, Madam Speaker, as a member of the largest number
of women in this Congress, and I can tell you, I am offended by this
bill. I stand here today in opposition.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a cosponsor of the bill and one of my
colleagues from my State.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee
for her work on this issue, and I also thank Chairman Chaffetz for the
work that he has done on this issue.
Both the gentlewoman and the chairman have mentioned the work and the
comments by Mayor Gray regarding this policy and the policy by the
RHNDA. You can say the reason that we are here tonight is to correct a
wrong. I think you could also say that it is here to protect one of
those first principles that we hold so very dear in this country and
one of the reasons that our country was founded: to celebrate and enjoy
religious freedom. So that is what brings us to the floor tonight. One
of the things that we hear from our constituents all the time, Madam
Speaker, is that we should never pass bills that are going to
compromise or limit our freedoms.
Now, it is important to note that what the District has done with the
RHNDA would prevent organizations of faith--including schools,
churches, and pro-life groups established explicitly to uphold their
moral and ethical views--from making personnel decisions consistent
with the mission of their very establishment. So that is a prohibition
that we are addressing with this resolution that we are bringing
forward tonight.
I think it is important to note the resolution doesn't take away any
rights and it doesn't add any new rights. What it does is to maintain
what has been current law. That is something that is important for us
to remember. I also think it is important to note that in 2012 the
Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the rights of religious
organizations, and we stand tonight with that affirmation.
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my
good friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record two
letters, one from Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
and the other from over 20 organizations, including the Anti-Defamation
League, Catholics for Choice, People for the American Way, United
Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, over 20
organizations. Both letters are in opposition to the resolution.
Americans United, April 30, 2015.
Re: Oppose Attempts to Curtail Civil Rights in the District
of Columbia
Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, we write to urge you to
oppose efforts to curtail civil rights in the District of
Columbia, including H.J. Res. 43, the resolution to
disapprove of D.C.'s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act of 2014 (RHNDAA). This bill, which the D.C.
Council recently passed unanimously, expands civil rights and
effectuates the will of the people of D.C. It should not be
nullified by Congress.
Founded in 1947, Americans United is a nonpartisan
educational organization dedicated to preserving the,
constitutional principle of church-state separation as the
only way to ensure true religious freedom for all Americans.
We fight to protect the right of individuals and religious
communities to worship--or not--as they see fit without
government interference, compulsion, support, or
disparagement. Americans United has more than 120,000 members
and supporters across the country.
the reproductive health non-discrimination amendment act
The RHNDAA protects D.C. employees and their dependents
from discrimination based on their personal reproductive
health care decisions. This bill strengthens existing
protections against employment discrimination and ensures
that employees and their families can make their own private
health decisions, including whether, when, and how to start a
family and what the size of their family should be, without
fear of losing their jobs or facing retribution from their
employers.
Our nation's laws have long protected the freedom of
religion and belief, ensuring every person has the right to
follow the dictates of his or her own conscience. Contrary to
opponents' claims, the RHNDAA does not violate religious
freedom protections.
In accordance with the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, religious beliefs do not
excuse compliance with valid and neutral laws of general
applicability. Courts deem laws neutral unless they ``target
religious beliefs'' or ``if the object of [the] law is to
infringe upon or restrict practices because of their
religious motivation.'' The RHNDAA does not single out
religious beliefs or practices. Instead, the bill treats all
employers the same.
The RHNDAA would also survive a challenge under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which applies to
D.C. RFRA prohibits the government from ``substantially
burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion'' unless the
government can demonstrate that the burden is justified by a
compelling government interest and is the least restrictive
means of furthering that interest. RFRA is not triggered when
there is just ``the slightest obstacle to religious
exercise.'' And, burdens are permissible when the
government's interest is important, including combatting
discrimination.
The bill does not compel any employer to endorse any
actions that may be in conflict with their religious tenets.
This act merely ensures that employees and their families
face no employment consequences for their private health care
decisions. Eradicating employment discrimination against
women is a compelling government interest and there is no
less restrictive means of preventing discrimination.
Furthermore, this bill protects women who choose to
exercise their constitutionally protected rights to make
``personal choice[s] in matters of marriage and family
life.'' Business owners are absolutely entitled to their
religious beliefs--but they cannot use their beliefs to
justify discrimination against their employees. The RHNDAA
would make sure that employees and their families can make
their own private health decisions, based on their own
consciences and in consultation with their own physicians,
without fear of losing their job.
Finally, it's important to remember that the RHNDAA does
not override existing protections for religious employers in
hiring.
[[Page H2737]]
The D.C. Human Rights Act already contains an exemption for
employers ``operated, supervised, or controlled by or in
connection with a religious . . . organization'' to give
preference or limit employment to those of the same faith.
Moreover, as the Supreme Court held in Hosanna-Tabor
Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., the First
Amendment protects religious institutions' right to make
decisions about employees in ministerial positions--those who
preach and teach the faith. The RHNDAA does not alter these
already-existing protections.
The Human Rights Amendment Act
Although the House will be voting on H.J. Res. 43, which
would prevent the RHNDAA from taking effect, H.J. Res. 44, a
resolution of disapproval of D.C.'s Human Rights Amendment
Act of 2014 (HRAA), has also been introduced. This is another
attempt to curtail civil rights in the District of Columbia
and should likewise be rejected.
The HRAA would ensure that LGBT students in the District
are not subject to discrimination by educational
institutions. Under the HRAA, religiously affiliated
educational institutions would have to provide LGBT student
groups with the same equal access to school facilities and
services as all other student groups, but they would not be
required to provide LGBT student groups with funds or
official recognition.
The HRAA, like the RHNDAA, has also been attacked by
opponents claiming it violates religious freedom protections
under the First Amendment and RFRA. But religiously
affiliated educational institutions have neither a
constitutional nor statutory right to discriminate against
LGBT student groups in the name of religion. The HRAA is a
neutral law of general applicability that has the effect of
ensuring all schools and universities provide equal access
and services to LGBT students. It would not compel the
schools to fund or recognize LGBT student groups and serves a
government interest that the D.C. Court of Appeals long ago
held was compelling. As explained by the Court, eradicating
discrimination against LGBT students serves to ``foster[]
individual dignity, . . . creat[e] a climate and environment
in which each individual can utilize his or her potential to
contribute to and benefit from society, and [promote the]
equal protection of the life, liberty and property that the
Founding Fathers guaranteed to us all:''
Conclusion
The D.C. Council, supported by the people it represents,
passed the RHNDAA and the HRAA to protect members of the D.C.
community from discrimination. Contrary to the rhetoric
surrounding this bill, it does not violate religious liberty
protections. Rather, the RHNDAA stands to protect all
employees in the District from discrimination. Accordingly,
we urge you to reject any attempts to curtail civil rights in
the District of Columbia, including H.J. Res. 43.
Religion should never be used an excuse to justify
discrimination. Yet that is what opponents of these measures
would like to do. We know there will be other attempts to
misuse religious liberty in Congress. We urge you to reject
this one and those to come.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Maggie Garrett,
Legislative Director, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State
Elise Helgesen Aguilar,
Federal Legislative Counsel, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State.
____
April 30, 2015.
Re: Oppose Attempts to Curtail D.C. Civil Rights
Dear Representative: The undersigned religious, interfaith,
and civil liberties organizations that advocate for freedom
of religion and belief write to urge you to reject any and
all congressional efforts, including resolutions of
disapproval, that would prevent two D.C. civil rights bills
from taking effect. The D.C. Council unanimously passed both
the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of
2014 (RHNDAA) and the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014
(HRAA) to support one basic underlying principle: fairness.
The bills help ensure that others are treated fairly--as we
all would like to be treated. These bills do not violate
religious freedom, but instead protect freedom of conscience
of and ensure equal treatment for all students and employees.
We urge you to oppose H. J. Res. 43, which seeks to
overturn the RHNDAA. The RHNDAA strengthens the District's
existing nondiscrimination protections so that employees in
D.C. and their dependents do not face employment
discrimination because of their personal reproductive health
care decisions.
The RHNDAA would ensure that employees and their families
can make their own private health decisions, based on their
own consciences and in consultation with their own
physicians, without fear of losing their job. Business owners
are absolutely entitled to their personal religious beliefs--
but they cannot use their beliefs to justify discrimination
against their employees.
Similarly, we urge you to oppose H. J. Res. 44, which would
repeal the HRAA. The HRAA ensures that all educational
institutions in D.C. provide access to school facilities and
services for all student clubs equally. Contrary to
opponents' claims, the HRAA does not require religiously
affiliated schools to provide LGBT student groups with
funding or official recognition. The HRAA simply upholds
students' freedom of conscience by repealing a
congressionally imposed exemption to D.C. law that allows
religiously affiliated educational institutions to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Despite opponents' claims, neither bill violates the
religious freedom protections found in the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA). The two bills are neutral and
generally applicable because they have the effect of applying
nondiscrimination protections to all employers and all
educational institutions in the District; neither single out
a faith group or religious practice. Moreover, neither bill
requires a religious organization to endorse any action that
conflicts with its religious teachings. Finally, each bill
furthers the government's compelling interest in eradicating
discrimination in the District.
Religious freedom is a fundamental American value. It
guarantees us the freedom to hold any belief we choose
without government interference. It cannot, however, be used
to trump others' civil rights, and it should not justify
striking down laws that ensure people are treated fairly. We
should strive to expand civil rights protections, not curtail
them.
We urge you to oppose any attempts to curtail civil rights
in the District of Columbia, including H. J. Res. 43 and H.
J. Res. 44.
Sincerely,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
Anti-Defamation League, Catholics for Choice, Center
for Inquiry, Disciples for Choice, Disciples Justice
Action Network, Equal Justice Task Force of African
American Ministers In Action, Equal Partners in Faith,
Hindu American Foundation, Institute for Science and
Human Values, Inc., Interfaith Alliance, Methodist
Federation for Social Action, Metropolitan Community
Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, People For
the American Way, Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice, Secular Coalition for America, Sikh American
Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Union for
Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, Justice and
Witness Ministries, United Methodist Church, General
Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist
Association.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the committee.
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
extreme and misguided resolution.
I am deeply troubled that this Chamber continues to waste its time
attacking women's health rather than crafting solutions for the
American people. Instead of addressing the real challenges facing our
Nation, this resolution is yet another attempt by House leaders to
inject ideology into women's personal medical decisions. A woman's
healthcare choices should be made between her and her doctor, not by
her boss.
By overturning D.C.'s new antidiscrimination protections, this
resolution would give employers the right to fire workers based on the
decisions they make about their birth control. This is simply
unacceptable. All Americans should be free to make medical decisions
without the fear of being fired or demoted.
Now is the time for House leaders to stop undermining women's
reproductive rights and focus on the actual needs of working families.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, let me repeat the opinion of former D.C.
Mayor Vincent Gray and his attorney general. They believe that this law
we are considering tonight is legally problematic and raises serious
concerns under the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, many organizations in the District have asked Congress
for help, including Cardinal Wuerl of the Catholic Diocese. I include
for the Record the April 17, 2015, letter to the editor of The
Washington Post from Cardinal Wuerl and President Garvey from Catholic
University.
[From the Washington Post, April 17, 2015]
Disagreement Is Not Discrimination
(By Donald Wuerl and John Garvey)
Cardinal Donald Wuerl is the archbishop of Washington. John
Garvey is the president of Catholic University of America.
Last month, Pope Francis announced that the Catholic Church
would celebrate a Holy Year of Divine Mercy. God's mercy has
been a theme of his pontificate.
[[Page H2738]]
We all need God's forgiveness. The pope has said, ``I am a
sinner.'' The Catholic Church's response to our human frailty
is not condemnation but mercy. There may be no institution
that understands this better.
Recent laws enacted by the D.C. Council would have us
believe otherwise. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act and the Human Rights Amendment Act purport to
address ``discrimination'' by institutions such as ours, the
Archdiocese of Washington and the Catholic University of
America. The putative victims of this discrimination are
people who part ways with church teaching about unborn life
and sexual autonomy.
Consider the reproductive health law, which the council
says is designed to prevent discrimination against employees
who have abortions, have sex outside marriage or seek
sterilization or other means to prevent pregnancy. Given the
effort expended and ink spilled on this purported civil
rights measure, you would think the church was hunting out
sexual offenders and fining or firing them. But the church
understands that we are all sinners, all equally deserving of
punishment (if it comes to that) and all equally in need of
God's mercy. We are not in the business of privileging some
sinners over others.
The church's message, though, is one of mercy, not moral
indifferentism. That is why we object to these two laws. They
ask for much more than mercy and understanding. Consider
again the reproductive health law. It forbids an employer to
``discriminate against an individual'' on the basis of her
``reproductive health decision making.'' Suppose your job is
pro-life education in the archdiocese's Department of Life
Issues. We can imagine a woman who had an abortion working
effectively in that office. (Dorothy Day, founder of the
Catholic Worker movement and a great witness to life, had an
abortion when she was 21.) But suppose you continue to
believe that abortion was the right choice for you to make
and honesty compels you to share that opinion with other
women in your circumstances. A law forbidding discrimination
on the basis of ``reproductive health decision making'' would
seem to prevent the church from challenging or dismissing
such an employee, even though she is working at odds with the
mission of the office that hired her.
We have similar concerns about the Human Rights Amendment
law. It says that religious institutions are guilty of
discrimination against gay and lesbian student groups if, in
the words of the committee report, they deny them the same
``rights and facilities as other officially recognized
student groups.'' The Catholic Church's views about sexual
autonomy, like its views about reproductive health, are more
traditional than those held by the D.C. Council. But it seems
peculiar to say that the church discriminates, in some
morally objectionable way, by declining to give official
support to groups that hold views opposed to its own.
Mercy is not the same as moral relativism. Disagreement is
not the same as discrimination. The law goes too far when it
demands that the church abandon its beliefs in the pursuit of
an entirely novel state of equality.
The D.C. Council has failed to appreciate this point.
Reluctantly, we turned to Congress for a resolution of
disapproval. This procedure is in keeping with the American
tradition of political appeal against political decisions. If
that course of action fails, we have no doubt we will
eventually prevail in court. The respect for religious
freedom that we ask for is enshrined in the Constitution. But
we hope that our elected officials can also see that it's a
matter of common sense.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, our history has a long history of
tolerance toward religious institutions. Indeed, one of the words
inscribed on the rostrum here in the center of it is ``tolerance.'' We
need to approve this resolution to be tolerant of our religious
institutions. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 43.
Ms. NORTON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 5 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), my good friend.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia for her outstanding service and leadership on
behalf of the District of Columbia and the people of the District of
Columbia. As well, let me acknowledge the chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for his kind words of deliberation, and
certainly the ranking member for his leadership, Mr. Cummings, who, as
we all know, is addressing some of the very heavy concerns in his own
city.
Let me give all the facts, Madam Speaker. I happen to believe in
statehood for the District of Columbia. I think that is important to
state on the record. But I realize that the Constitution has a
framework for the Congress to address the issues of the laws here in
the District of Columbia. I realize, as well, that home rule has been
given under that authority, and this Congress, in the right thinking,
has allowed basically for the District of Columbia to rule its city on
the basis of good governance of the citizens of this particular
community. That is the right thing to do. They are taxpaying Americans.
So I am disturbed by H.J. Res. 43 because it seeks to cause confusion
where there is no need for confusion. Let me first start by saying that
the Ninth Amendment gives a right to privacy to all Americans, and
Washingtonians are Americans. The right to privacy has indicated,
through the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade, the right to choose, is
the law.
Yes, the First Amendment gives the freedom of religion, but our
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has indicated that the
District of Columbia clarified that this law does not violate and will
not force someone to go against their political views or their
religious views.
Why are we here tonight when this resolution that the District of
Columbia passed simply prohibits employers from discriminating against
employees based on their reproductive health decisions, protects the
reproductive health decisions of the spouses and dependents, and
prohibits an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro
fertilization or birth control?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady.
So, in essence, Madam Speaker, this resolution is not in order.
If I might make another analogy, what is not given to the Federal
Government is left to the States in the Tenth Amendment. I know that
D.C. is not a State, but what I would say is that this law has been
clarified in the District of Columbia. We are intruding. The rights are
protected under the Ninth Amendment, and this resolution is out of
order. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 43
disapproving the District of Columbia government's approval of the
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act also known as RHNDA.
As I have before, I maintain that the right of a woman to privacy
must remain sacrosanct because the well being and protection of women
is the nucleus of a healthy America and a healthy world.
Indeed, in most parts of our country, the woman is the constant that
keeps all the variables of family together, organized and on track.
Thus, for three key reasons I oppose H.J. Res. 43.
First, it is in derogation of DC's local autonomy, an autonomy that
we enjoy in our respective states, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
In relevant part, the Tenth Amendment states that powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
I find it ironic, as duly elected officials that some of us seek to
trample upon the rights that we enjoy vis a vis the separation of the
federal and state powers, as delineated in our Constitution.
To add insult to injury, some of us are even able to look the
congressional representative from Washington, DC in the eye, while we
take adverse decisions that affect the livelihood of her constituents.
Second, the District of Columbia government's action does good
without infringing on the First Amendment and religious freedoms of
American citizens.
Third, this recent iteration of the war on the rights of women
underscores our misplaced priorities where we have numerous pressing
issues.
Among others, we continue to have unemployment, national security
concerns with the continued proliferation of terrorist organizations
across the globe.
We continue to grapple with how we need to work in a bipartisan
manner on the issues of education, healthcare and infrastructure
building to protect children, our elderly, veterans and other groups.
Our focus ought to be on bettering the quality of life for everyday
American people.
Let us zoom in on one of what should be our major priority areas:
jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that over 8 million Americans
are unemployed.
Specifically, among the major worker groups affected by the current
unemployment rates
[[Page H2739]]
are adult men who account for 5.1 percent, adult women who account for
4.9 percent and teenagers who account for 17.5 percent.
Whites make up 4.7 percent, African Americans 10.1 percent, Asians
3.2 percent and Hispanics make up 6.8 percent.
Should we really be focusing our attention on a measure that blocks
the District of Columbia's effort to make laws that protects the
privacy rights of women and their spouses when we have more pressing
priorities?
But back to H.J. Res. 43.
What does this legislation do to undermine DC's autonomy, attack
women's rights and waste precious tax payer resources?
H.J. Res. 43 seeks to undermine an underlying Bill: the Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Act considered, voted upon by the duly
elected officials of the District of Columbia and signed into law by
Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, DC in January of this year.
The underlying bill signed into law in Washington, DC would do the
following:
Prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on
their reproductive health decisions.
Protect the reproductive health decisions of spouses and dependents.
Prohibit an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro
fertilization or birth control.
Contrary to assertions by my colleagues across the aisle, let us look
at what RHNDA does not do:
First, it does not impose any new requirements on employers to
provide health insurance coverage;
In fact, the D.C. Council considered this issue and clarified that
RHNDA's protections do not reach insurance coverage by passing a
temporary clarification;
Second, the RHNDA does not infringe on First Amendment rights;
Indeed, the RHNDA does not impact an organization or church's ability
to make hiring decisions based on religious or political views.
Opponents may claim that the bill might require churches or religious
organizations to hire pro-choice candidates.
This can hold no water because it is simply not within the scope of
RHNDA.
The RHNDA strikes the balance of protecting personal decisions a
woman makes regarding her reproductive health while not overreaching
related to personal religious beliefs as it relates to a woman's
reproductive health.
In my view, H.J. Res. 43 is another jab at the voice of women, their
rights to self-determination and reproductive freedoms articulated in
our nation's highest court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe
v. Wade.
My friends, this week, 100 years ago, over 1000 women activists
congregated at the Hague to ask for peace, protesting World War I and
asserted their right to self-determination.
Dr. Aletta Jacobs, Jane Addams and sociologist Emily G. Balch were
some of the champions of women's rights a century ago at the Hague.
Similar to their counterparts a century ago, today, in our era, we
are blessed with women who are champions of a woman's right to self-
determination and privacy.
Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke and Lilly Ledbetter, just to name a few.
Notwithstanding the sacrifices made by all these women of courage,
women and girls continue to be at the mercy of people who fail to try
to show empathy towards their mothers, their sisters, their daughters,
and loved ones.
Take for example the case of Emily Herx, a married woman who was
terminated for using in vitro to become pregnant.
With her husband by her side, fortunately she was awarded a $1.9
million judgment against her employer.
Then there's the case of Jennifer Maudlin, a single unmarried mother
working to support her children, who worked for an employer hostile
towards unmarried women who became pregnant.
Maudlin was terminated as well, but was able to enter a settlement
with her employer after she fought her illegal termination.
Then there is the case of Apryl Kellam, who was threatened with
termination for being a single mother.
And the stories go on and on.
Clearly, as these real life stories reflect, H.J. Res. 43 affects
all: significant others, spouses and daughters.
If passed, Republicans seek to empower employers to fire a woman
because she has an abortion after experiencing the violent act of rape.
That is immoral.
Republicans seek to empower employers to demote a woman or pay her
less if she chooses to take birth control pills.
That is unfair.
Indeed, Republicans seek to empower employers to fire a male worker
because he uses condoms and because his wife uses birth control pills.
That makes no sense.
Republicans seek to empower employers to terminate a male employee
because his teenage daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock.
That is irrational.
In other words, Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 43 is immoral, unfair and
irrational.
It is also in derogation of women's privacy rights, violative of
family rights and economic empowerment-issues affecting the livelihood
of millions of families across our nation.
Thus, I stand in solidarity with my colleagues in opposing this Bill.
I also stand in solidarity with the Administration which has urged
Congress in this Statement of Administration Policy to adopt the
President's FY 2016 Budget proposal allowing the District to enact
local laws and spend local funds in the same way as other cities and
States.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 43.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), who is a subcommittee chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and a cosponsor of the
bill.
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today and want to reach out to my
colleague, the Delegate from D.C. to, one, say that I appreciate the
tone and tenor of this debate. I have great respect for her and,
actually, during this debate have grown to admire her even more.
I would like to point out, however, that much of what has been talked
about tonight about there being clarity is simply not the case, Madam
Speaker.
{time} 2230
We do know that, if we just broaden the ministerial exception, where
we can look for items of conscience and make sure that those
fundamental rights are protected, Madam Speaker, that this particular
legislation would indeed do exactly what the Delegate from D.C. has
said that it would do.
I stand here tonight to offer, again, my willingness to work with not
only the Delegate from D.C., but the Mayor and the city council, to
hopefully provide that clarifying language.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
May I say how much I appreciate that the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Meadows, made every effort to try to find some
accommodation with the District of Columbia. I certainly appreciated
that so much.
We were, unfortunately, unable to do so because the exemption he
sought would have swallowed the equal employment laws. There would have
been nothing left to them, but he tried very hard, and I appreciate the
spirit in which he has acted as our subcommittee chair.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), my good friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.
Res. 43.
This resolution would express Congress' disapproval of the District
of Columbia's legislation that would protect employees from
discrimination based on their reproductive health decisions.
Just last month, the States of Indiana and Arkansas attempted to pass
so-called ``religious freedom'' bills that are really an attempt to
permit discrimination.
Tonight, we are debating a resolution that would allow employers to
fire or refuse to hire workers because of their private reproductive
medical decisions, notwithstanding the protection provided to the
employees by the District of Columbia.
Madam Speaker, in 1993, when Congress passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, better known as RFRA, it did so with the intent to
expand protections for religious exercise; but since then, we have seen
attempts by Congress and some States to use so-called ``religious
liberty'' or ``religious freedom'' measures to undermine otherwise
valid protections against discrimination provided in the Civil Rights
Act.
This resolution would allow claims of a ``sincerely held religious
belief'' to justify otherwise illegal discrimination. The reasoning in
this resolution would also undermine all civil rights laws because
anyone could claim a sincerely held religious belief to justify
discrimination based on anything--race, religion, or any other
protected class.
The District of Columbia got it right. This law protects Washington,
D.C.,
[[Page H2740]]
citizens from invidious discrimination based on reproductive health
decisions. We should not overrule this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 43.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has
three-quarters of a minute remaining.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43,
which will stop the so-called Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act.
This bill, passed by the D.C. City Council, discriminates against
religious and pro-life advocacy groups in the District of Columbia.
The D.C. government forces employers to provide abortion coverage for
their employees. This law represents a flagrant disregard for the
conscience rights of all D.C. employers.
Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of the House to vote ``yes''
on this important resolution of disapproval.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43, to disapprove
the action of the D.C. Council in approving the Reproductive Health
Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, which I believe clearly
violates the constitutional freedoms of the citizens of the District of
Columbia.
This is not just about the citizens of one city. It is about
protecting the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Constitution for
all Americans. This is about making sure the government does not force
employers with deeply held religious beliefs and values to act against
their conscience.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 43.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. I thank Mrs. Black for her leadership.
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
Madam Speaker, will we dare vote tonight to uphold the free exercise
of religion? Will we dare vote tonight to ensure that no church or
religious institution in the District of Columbia is forced to violate
their beliefs and convictions?
Yes, we have a solemn obligation to support our constitutional
commitment to religious liberty, so I urge all my colleagues to join me
in supporting H.J. Res. 43, the disapproval resolution to block the
D.C. Council's disregard of fundamental constitutional rights.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, the question tonight is clearly the evisceration of
the U.S. Constitution by the District of Columbia.
Don't take my word for it. Even the former Mayor of D.C., who agrees
ideologically with the D.C. Council, warned his colleagues that the
D.C. bill was ``legally insufficient,'' ``legally problematic,'' and
``raises concerns under the Constitution and under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.''
RHNDA discriminates against mission-driven organizations located in
the Nation's Capital, impinging on the freedom of association and
religion for advocacy groups, particularly religious and pro-life
affiliates, our neighbors right here in the District of Columbia.
I ask we vote ``yes.''
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. This resolution represents tyranny on two levels: the
tyranny the Framers most feared, by the Federal Government interfering
with local government; and the tyranny Americans especially fear today,
interference with the most private decision they make, the decision
concerning their reproductive health.
Vote ``no.'' Stop this tyranny in the District of Columbia before it
spreads throughout the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the robust debates that we have had here today on this
important issue.
As I close, I would like to remind everyone, Madam Speaker, that this
is legislation that has constitutional problems. We have said this over
and over again since its inception, and the constitutional problems
have been recognized by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
There has been a lot of conversation tonight about what this bill
does and does not do. This resolution is about allowing religious and
political organizations to hire employees who agree with their core
mission as protected by the First Amendment.
It is imperative that this body adopt this resolution of disapproval
to ensure the protections granted to each and every American by the
First Amendment of our Constitution.
As a matter of fact, folks tried to say what this resolution would
do. It is a very simple resolution. It is a 1-page resolution. It has a
few sentences to it, and I would like to just read those sentences. It
is ``disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in
approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of
2014.'' That is simply what it does.
We have the constitutional authority to give an up-or-down vote. We
are not amending. If this resolution of disapproval is adopted by this
body, it simply will put back into place what is already law in the
District of Columbia. It will not be taking away any rights.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution, which would disapprove of the D.C. Council's passage of the
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act.
This resolution infringes on the reproductive rights of American
citizens.
It allows employers to discriminate against employees based on their
personal health decisions.
And it tramples on the rights of the people of the District of
Columbia to govern themselves.
In January, the Mayor of the District of Columbia signed the
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act.
This Act was passed by the District's elected representatives on the
D.C. Council.
The Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees
based on their reproductive health decisions.
It also protects the reproductive health decisions of their spouses
and their dependents.
By passing this resolution, congressional Republicans are impinging
on the rights of women in the District of Columbia to make their own
reproductive health decisions without fear that their bosses will
punish them.
This resolution would permit an employer to fire a woman because she
has an abortion after being raped.
It would allow an employer to demote a woman--or pay her less--if she
chooses to take birth control pills.
This resolution would not affect only the rights of women.
It would allow an employer to fire a male worker because he uses
condoms, because his wife uses the pill, or because his teenage
daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock.
As I told my colleagues in the Oversight Committee when we marked up
this resolution, this is the same Committee that brought the world
Sandra Fluke.
She wanted to come before the House Oversight Committee to testify
about contraceptives on February 16, 2012.
[[Page H2741]]
But she was not allowed to speak. She was deemed ``unqualified.''
Today, this is exactly what House Republicans are doing to the people
of the District of Columbia.
They want a voice in their own governance. They expressed their will.
And their elected officials passed a law protecting their rights.
But now, House Republicans are trying to silence the voters of the
District of Columbia, just as they tried to silence Sandra Fluke.
This approach will backfire, just as it did with Sandra Fluke.
She gave a voice to millions of women across the country, and she was
heard far and wide.
The simple fact is that, regardless of what House Republicans do here
today, this resolution has no chance of becoming law.
We all know this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. But it
reveals very clearly what Republicans stand for.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this measure,
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, it is simply shocking that in this day and
age employees are still being discriminated against because of their
reproductive health choices, such as whether or not to use birth
control, undergo in vitro fertilization to get pregnant, or for having
sex without being married.
The Council of the District of Columbia recently passed a law
protecting D.C. women and families from such discrimination, making it
clear that they cannot be penalized or retaliated against because of
the employee's personal reproductive health care choices. The District
of Columbia Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act takes
a stand and makes a statement that this sort of discrimination will not
be tolerated in the District of Columbia.
The House Majority wants to overturn the D.C. Council's law. H.J.
Res. 43 is not only a slap in the face of the women of D.C. but also to
their families. It affects whether people can chose to wait to have
children, have children at all, and when they can or cannot have sex.
Frankly, it's none of our business. Is there anything more private than
someone's child-bearing decisions? Than who to get intimate with? In a
country that will spend $166 million on the movie 50 Shades of Grey,
the Republican Majority thinks imposing their own Puritanical ideology
and theology on District residents is acceptable?
House Republicans constantly argue for limiting the power of the
federal government and to respect the rights of the state and local
governments. However, once again, they feel it is necessary to usurp
the decision that the D.C. government unanimously voted on for its own
citizens. Do unto others but don't do unto me. That is about as
hypocritical as you can get.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 43
and to support D.C.'s local government and the women of D.C. to make
their own reproductive choices.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the Republican
Majority's unilateral, and rather extraordinary, effort to undermine
democracy in the District of Columbia.
A majority that claims to oppose big government and fancies itself as
the champion of State and local rights; astonishingly finds itself on
the precipice of wielding the Federal Government's power to overturn
the decision of a local government solely because it can. Not because
it should; but because it can.
Never mind that the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment
Act was appropriately considered, passed, and enacted by the duly
elected representatives of the District of Columbia. The majority has
decided that democratic principles take a back seat to pleasing its
anti-reproductive rights base.
Make no mistake; this disgraceful vote represents a strike against
the right to self-governance. It is an affront to D.C. home rule and a
regrettable regression by the majority to a previous era, when
Republicans of the 1990's abused congressional power to advance
intrusive, anti-democratic legislation that meddled in the District's
local affairs. Indeed, this resolution is emblematic of efforts by
certain segments of the conservative movement that intended or not,
would actually have the effect of enshrining bigotry into our laws in
the name of fighting it.
Let us have no illusions about what the majority seeks to do this
evening. In making a mockery of the D.C. Home Rule Act, the majority is
seeking to repeal a local government statute that prohibits
discrimination on the basis of reproductive health decisions and
protects its citizens against prejudice in the workplace.
This law has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance coverage.
As the Chairman of the D.C. Council stated in a letter to Congress,
``The purpose and intent of this bill is to prevent an employer,
through our Human Rights Act, from firing an employee for that
employee's personal decision regarding his or her reproductive
health.''
In closing, it is true that the United States Constitution grants the
Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the affairs of the District of
Columbia. Yet, just because we can does not mean we should.
I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who loudly
proclaim to be the part of limited government, to recognize that
Congress should always strive to treat the District of Columbia like
any other State, and respect the rights of all Americans to exercise
democratic self-governance.
I urge all my colleagues to strongly oppose this anti-democratic
resolution.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to House Joint Resolution 43 to overturn the D.C.
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act.
To be clear, this Resolution is not about protecting freedom of
religion and beliefs. No, House Joint Resolution 43 is about allowing
discrimination.
Despite misleading rhetoric, this Resolution would allow an employer
to discriminate against an employee based on the employee's personal
health care decisions--decisions which have nothing to do with the
employer.
Everyone should have the ability to make private health decisions
including whether, when, and how to start a family, without fear of
losing their jobs or facing retribution from employers.
The D.C. Council understands this and, by passing the Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act, seeks to ensure fair and
necessary employment protections for the people of the District of
Columbia.
The Council deserves our respect when protecting the rights of their
constituents . . . the people who elected them. The oversight of this
body should not extend to overturning legislation passed by
democratically-elected representatives of the people of D.C.
The freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom established by our
founding fathers that we should fiercely protect, but to suggest that
it extends to employers imposing their beliefs on the people that work
for them, as this Resolution does, is just plain WRONG, particularly
when it comes to something as personal as reproductive health.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition to H.J. Res. 43, Disapproving the Action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act. While this resolution is certainly an
abuse of Congress' authority over the District of Columbia, it more
importantly undermines the right of a woman to make personal, private
healthcare decisions.
The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014 (RHNDA) was
passed by the D.C. Council in order to protect employees and their
families from discrimination. RHNDA ensures that an employee cannot be
terminated based on personal reproductive healthcare decisions. For
instance, the use of birth control, the decision of when to start a
family, or the use of in vitro fertilization are not grounds for
termination in the District of Columbia.
The RHNDA does not impose any new requirements on employers to
provide health insurance coverage or to pay for any reproductive or
abortion services nor does it discriminate against pro-life
organizations. The RHNDA actually clarifies that every employee in D.C.
is able to follow their own moral or religious beliefs, including when
and how to start a family, without fear of facing consequences at work.
Religious liberty is of the utmost importance and the RHNDA respects
religious and moral decision-making without impacting anyone outside of
the person making their own decisions. We must allow religious liberty
to also mean allowing people to work in an environment that respects
their dignity and private life and is free from discrimination.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 43 because it not only
infringes upon the personal decision-making of an individual, it also
blatantly disregards D.C.'s local laws.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 43, a
joint resolution of Congress, which is needed to protect the conscience
rights of pro-life employers that operate in the District of Columbia.
Under DC's home rule law, Congress has a time period in which to review
DC-passed legislation.
In January, DC Mayor Bowser signed the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act (RHNNDA). This measure would, in part, ban
employers from making personnel decisions based on an individual's
decisions relating to abortion and other reproductive health issues.
RHNNDA would have the force of law and specifically discriminate
against pro-life employers by potentially forcing them to hire and
retain individuals who advocate for policies that run counter to the
employer's mission.
Pro-life organizations, including those who exist to advance pro-life
policies, should not be forced by the DC government to hire individuals
who hold and advocate for positions
[[Page H2742]]
that run counter to the core values of that organization. Christian
schools and pro-life organizations should not be required to cover
``reproductive health decisions'' in their health care plans that are
counter to their core pro-life convictions.
This DC law amounts to coercion and should have no place in the
nation's capital, or any jurisdiction for that matter. This is a step
too far and H.J. Res. 43 restores these fundamental conscience rights.
I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my colleagues
to join me in voting for this important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution 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 joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 192, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
YEAS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--192
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Buck
Cummings
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Lewis
Poliquin
Smith (WA)
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Yarmuth
Young (IN)
{time} 2308
Mr. BARLETTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________