Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1732, Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015; Providing for Consideration of Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 11, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2016; And Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. 43, Disapproval of District of Columbia Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of today's measures, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is a dilatory tactic.

These measures will protect our farmers, ranchers, and business community from a massive Federal overreach being perpetrated by the EPA, approve our FY16 budget that puts us on a path to rein in reckless spending, reform entitlement programs, and protect the religious rights of D.C. employers.

As a mother, a woman, and an individual of prayer, I am very glad that we are here today defending life and our Constitution, consistent with our congressional prerogatives.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle act shocked that we are debating this issue. But what is truly shocking is that we need to be here today at all, discussing whether to grant employers in the District of Columbia the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, but we are.

I would further like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle some of the words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted.''

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about discrimination against people here. We are discussing the protection of innocent life. As Members of Congress, we have a heightened responsibility to protect the rights of D.C. residents because the Constitution in article I, section 8 gives the Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government.

It is under that authority that we consider H.J. Res. 43, a resolution to disapprove the action of the Council of the District of Columbia in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014, or RHNDA.

Our country holds as its most fundamental freedom the right to practice freely one's religion and associate with others who hold the same beliefs. It is unthinkable that we could allow the leadership--if you want to call it leadership, the people in control of Our Capital City--to infringe on that right for the millions of Americans who live or work inside its borders. But that is what RHNDA does.

It tells churches, religious schools, and advocacy organizations that they may not make employment decisions based on their own core principles, including the respect for precious unborn life, a principle that is central to many of these groups' entire belief system.

Cloaked in language purporting to prohibit discrimination and promote tolerance, this law targets these organizations and tramples their rights to exercise their views on the respect for life.

In truth, Mr. Speaker, this law discriminates against and promotes intolerance of anyone who disagrees with the world view of the majority of the D.C. City Council. It is not discriminatory for a church or religious school to believe and preach that life begins at conception. It is not discriminatory to practice these deeply held beliefs; that is, unless you are in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this law may force religious organizations to relocate outside the District of Columbia in order to protect their rights. Given the clear hostility the City Council has shown them and what we have heard on this floor today, that may, in fact, be the ultimate goal.

When we take our oath of office as Representatives, we promise to protect and defend the Constitution. That includes protection of religious freedoms, and it is why I support H.J. Res. 43 which disapproves RHNDA.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from Georgia for the great leadership he shows in the Rules Committee and on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many comments. Some of them, I am going to do my best to refute comment by comment; others, I am just going to talk about in general.

Their one charge is that Congress should stay out of the business of governing D.C. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government. The extent to which Congress should oversee or intervene in the governance of the District is a debate for another day, but it is clearly our responsibility.

Current law compels congressional oversight, and we must exercise responsibly that jurisdiction. That includes acting to stop legislation that clearly violates the constitutional freedoms of the citizens of the District.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that women are protected by law, both Federal and D.C., from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Their personal medical decisions are also private under HIPAA protections.

This discussion is not about how someone chooses to conduct their personal affairs. It is about whether the D.C. government may force an organization to hire, retain, and promote someone who actively opposes their central mission and core beliefs.

Pro-life groups, religious organizations, and Republicans, are not the only ones to see significant problems with RHNDA. Even former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray cautioned that RHNDA goes too far, and called the bill ``legally insufficient'' and ``legally problematic.''

Whatever his position may be on life issues, he recognized that the approach taken by the City Council does not adequately protect free exercise. He further noted that the measure ``raises serious concerns under the Constitution and under the Religions Freedom Restoration Act.''

The District's own attorney general also expressed concerns that ``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.''

The D.C. Council's cavalier attitude toward the constitutional rights protecting religious practice and belief is deeply troubling. Unfortunately, RHNDA is a harbinger of continued efforts to undermine the right of free exercise and association.

RHNDA denies these fundamental rights to pro-life organizations and religious groups who do not fit the narrow definition of ``ministers'' exempted from the D.C. law. Under this law, these organizations can be forced to hire, retain, and promote individuals who work actively against their central mission and core beliefs.

The clear and shameless targeting of these organizations must be opposed by anyone who values the rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, our oath of office requires us to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that religious organizations have the right to hire individuals that support their mission, saying: ``The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission ..... The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.''

Consistent with our oath of office, I commend this rule and disapproval resolution for our support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source