Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its local funds to carry out a local antidiscrimination law, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. Unlike the D.C.
Council which passed this law, no Member of this Congress was elected to legislate on local D.C. matters, or is accountable to the voters of the District of Columbia.
This amendment gives employers the license to discriminate against employees, their spouses, and their dependents, based on their private, constitutionally protected reproductive decisions.
This amendment permits employers to fire a woman for having an abortion due to rape, or to decline to hire a woman for using in vitro fertilization, or to fire a man for using condoms, or to reduce the salary of a parent for buying birth control for his or her child.
Contrary to the sponsor's claim, the D.C. law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions. Importantly, the law states expressly, here this language: ``This section shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to a reproductive health decision.'' The D.C. law is valid under both the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indeed, the law has been in effect for more than 2 years. It is now law. And there appear to have been no lawsuits challenging it.
Under the U.S. Constitution, laws may limit religious exercise if they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, laws may substantially burden religious exercise only if they further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive means.
The D.C. law meets all of these requirements. That is why it has never been challenged. The D.C. law also protects religious liberty.
The Constitution's narrow ministerial exception allows religious organizations to make employment decisions for ministers and ministerial employees for any reason whatsoever.
D.C. law permits religious and political organizations to make employment decisions based on religious and political views. Under the D.C. law, employees must be willing to carry out an employer's missions and directives.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment in order to protect employees' reproductive health decisions, workplace equality, and D.C.'s own right to self-government.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I don't know what the District of Columbia can do to satisfy the ideologically driven Members on the other side. We protected religious liberty. There have been absolutely no challenges.
Republicans persist in ignoring the plain wording on abortion, and, above all, they have ignored their own groundwork principle of local control.
This is a majority that yells local control for everybody except the residents of the District of Columbia. We have defeated this amendment before. We will defeat this amendment again, if not in this House, in the other Chamber, I assure you. It is law. It is going to remain law.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the repeal of the District of Columbia's Local Budget Autonomy Act, which allows the District of Columbia to spend its local funds consisting solely of local taxes and fees after a 30-day congressional review period; and this is now law.
It is astonishing that my Republican colleagues are so at odds with a local jurisdiction spending its own local funds without the approval of a Federal body, U.S. Congress, and that the House will be voting for a third time since May 2016 to repeal this local law. The first two attempts were not enacted into law, and I expect this third attempt to fail, too.
In fact, I should not even have to offer this amendment. The bill's repeal of the Local Budget Autonomy Act violates the House rule against legislating on an appropriations bill. Of course, the special rule governing consideration of the bill prohibits me from raising a point of order against the repeal provision, which would be sustained by the Chair.
The Local Budget Autonomy Act is in effect. It is now law, I repeat. This year, the D.C. Council passed its second local budget under the Local Budget Autonomy Act. Smart lawyers differed about the validity of the Local Budget Autonomy Act when D.C. enacted it. However, the Local Budget Autonomy Act has been litigated. The only court ruling in effect upheld it, the ruling was not appealed, and the court ordered D.C. officials to implement it.
Some House Republicans disguised their opposition to the Local Budget Autonomy Act with legalistic arguments until Speaker Ryan revealed last year the real reason the House passed the stand-alone bill repealing the Local Budget Autonomy Act. He said: ``There are real consequences. The D.C. government wants to use revenues to fund abortions in the District. House Republicans will not stand for that.''
The Speaker was wrong about the effect of the Local Budget Autonomy Act. Congress loses nothing under our budget autonomy law. Congress retains the authority to legislate on any D.C. matter, including its local budget, at any time. That is unfortunate, but that, too, is the law.
The Local Budget Autonomy Act is a modest attempt by the District to be able to implement its local budget soon after it is passed, like other jurisdictions, instead of having it caught up in congressional delays.
Indeed, the riders in the bill prohibiting D.C. from spending its local funds on marijuana commercialization and abortion services for low-income women were changed from those in prior appropriations bills to account for the Local Budget Autonomy Act. Still, that is not enough.
Historically, D.C. riders applied only to funds included in appropriations bills, because only appropriations bills authorized D.C. spending. In this bill, as in fiscal year 2017, the riders apply to D.C. local funds available under any authority, including those in the local budget passed under the Local Budget Autonomy Act.
Local control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is a principle much cited by my Republican colleagues, and it is, indeed, central to the American form of government. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for D.C., including lowering borrowing costs, more accurate revenue and expenditure forecasts, improved agency operations, and the removal of the threat of D.C. government shutdowns during Federal Government shutdowns. These are our concerns.
D.C.'s budget is larger than the budgets of 14 States, Mr. Chairman. The District raises $8 billion in local funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities and States in this country, with a rainy-day fund of over $2 billion on a total budget of $14 billion, budget autonomy makes the District even stronger, as it must be, because it has no State fallback.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source