[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6060-6075]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 6061]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 6062]]

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.

    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.

[[Page 6063]]

     
                                  ____
    ``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 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

[[Page 6064]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6065]]

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 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

[[Page 6066]]

     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, 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;

[[Page 6067]]

     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. 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

[[Page 6068]]

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 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

[[Page 6069]]

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. 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

[[Page 6070]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 6071]]

     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 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.

[[Page 6072]]

  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., 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.

[[Page 6073]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 6074]]

  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 choose 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 (RHNDA). 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.
  RHNDA 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 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.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to 
H.J. Res. 43, a

[[Page 6075]]

bill that aims to overturn the Reproductive Health Non-discrimination 
Amendment Act (RHNDA) which was recently passed by the DC City Council.
  The purpose of the RHNDA is to prevent DC employers from 
discriminating against workers for making personal reproductive health 
decisions that conflict with the expressed values of their employer. 
For example, the law prevents the firing of an employee for getting 
pregnant outside of marriage.
  Supporters of H.J. Res. 43 say the bill's intent is to protect the 
rights of employers who do not want to be forced to support the 
reproductive decisions of their employees. However, the RHNDA imposes 
no new requirements on employers to provide health insurance and does 
not change the insurance policies of current workers in any way. 
RHNDA's aim is simply to ensure that workers are judged based on their 
work decision-making, rather than on their personal health decision-
making.
  This Republican bill is not only an assault on workers' rights; it is 
also an assault on the rights of self-determination of the people of 
Washington D.C. Why should an Idaho congressman be able to overturn the 
unanimous decision of an elected body which is simply expressing the 
will of the DC voters that elected it?
  For these reasons, I oppose this bill and I encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  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.

                          ____________________