Disapproval of District of Columbia Reproductive Health Non-Discrimitation Amendement Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

D.C. law permits religious and political organizations to make employment decisions based on religion and political views; thus, employers in D.C. may continue to make employment decisions based on their religious and other beliefs, and their employees must be willing to carry out the employer's mission and directives with no exceptions.

The D.C. bill does not require employers to provide health insurance; instead, it requires equal treatment of employees. Both the text and the legislative history of the D.C. bill make that clear.

Nevertheless, when Members of Congress express concerns, the D.C. government, in order to eliminate any doubt, passed a new version of the bill that says, ``This act shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions.''

This provision is in effect now, but, under the Home Rule Act, a D.C. bill is not final until the end of the congressional review period. How absurd is that?

This disapproval resolution is a deliberate abuse of congressional authority over the district. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act to give the district the authority to legislate on local matters with a few enumerated exceptions and ``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' D.C. employment and reproductive health laws are not among those exceptions.

This evening, Madam Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues to live up to their own recently passed fiscal year 2016 budget which calls for the Federal Government to let States and cities govern their own affairs.

``America is a diverse nation. Our cities, States, and local communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop solutions that will serve their populations. But far too often, local leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates,'' so said the Republicans in their own budget this very year.

I ask the majority to live up to its professed principles of local control and of local affairs, Federalism and limited government. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the disapproval resolution to protect employees' reproductive health decisions, to protect workplace equality, and to protect the District's right to self-government as taxpaying American citizens.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to correct the gentleman that the church would have to buy insurance to cover abortion, the church is completely--every church is completely--exempt from this law. Or, as he indicated, that a pro-choice group would have to hire a candidate who believes in abortion, on the contrary, a pro-choice group can ask a candidate if that candidate is willing to carry out the mission of the organization against abortion, and if that candidate has any compunction, that candidate can, indeed, be refused employment; and if such a person is on staff, that person can be fired. You cannot be on somebody's staff and then take a position against the mission of that business or organization.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my good friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source