Norton to Fight Anti-Home-Rule Attacks in D.C. Appropriations Bill on House Floor, This Evening

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today released advance copies of her prepared floor statements on two District of Columbia-related amendments to the fiscal year 2017 House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, which contains the fiscal year 2017 D.C. Appropriations bill and will be considered on the floor this evening. Norton will speak on her amendment to strike the provision in the bill that repeals the referendum overwhelmingly approved by D.C. residents in 2013 that granted the District budget autonomy, and will also speak out against an anti-home-rule amendment offered by Representative Gary Palmer (R-AL) blocking D.C. from spending its local funds to enforce a local D.C. anti-discrimination law, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA). RHNDA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, their spouses and dependents based on their reproductive health decisions.

In her prepared floor statement on the budget autonomy referendum amendment, Norton said, “Local control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is a principle much-cited by congressional Republicans, and is central to the American form of government. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for D.C., including lower 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. D.C.’s budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 states. It raises more than $7 billion in local funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities and states, with a rainy-day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion, budget autonomy makes D.C. even stronger. The repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy; it is a blight on this country’s most revered principle—local control.”

In her prepared floor statement on Palmer’s amendment to block RHNDA and promote discrimination, Norton said, “The amendment prohibits the District of Columbia from using its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, to enforce a local anti-discrimination law, giving employers license, in the name of religion, to discriminate against employees, their spouses and their dependents based on their private, constitutionally protected reproductive health decisions. Contrary to the sponsor’s claim, the D.C. law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions. The law states expressly: ‘This act shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to a reproductive health decision.’ The 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.”

Norton full floor statements, as prepared for delivery, are below.

Floor Statement on Norton Amendment to Strike Budget Autonomy Repeal

I have an amendment at the desk. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment strikes the repeal of the District of Columbia budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, after a 30-day congressional review period. Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a federal body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in a little over a month to repeal the referendum.

D.C.’s budget autonomy referendum is in effect. The D.C. Council recently passed its first local budget pursuant to the referendum. Therefore, the repeal would be the most significant reduction in D.C.’s authority to govern itself since Congress granted D.C. limited home rule in 1973.

Smart lawyers differed about the validity of the referendum when D.C. enacted it. However, the referendum has been litigated, and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. In March, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the referendum, no appeal was filed and the court ordered D.C. employees to implement it.

Some House Republicans had long been disguising their opposition to the referendum with legalistic arguments until the Speaker revealed the real reason the House passed the stand-alone bill repealing the referendum. 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 budget autonomy. Congress loses nothing under budget autonomy. Congress retains the authority to legislate on any D.C. matter, including its local budget, at any time. The referendum is a modest attempt by D.C. to get enough control of its local funds to be able to implement its budget soon after it is passed, like other jurisdictions, instead of having it caught up in congressional delays.

Indeed, the riders in this 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 apply whether or not D.C. has budget autonomy. Historically, D.C. riders applied only to funds included in appropriations bills because only appropriations bills authorized D.C. spending. In this bill, the riders apply to any D.C. funds, however authorized, including those in budgets passed pursuant to the referendum. The riders Congress places in D.C. Appropriations bills will be untouched by budget autonomy.

Local control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is a principle much-cited by congressional Republicans, and is central to the American form of government. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for D.C., including lower 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.

D.C.’s budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 states. It raises more than $7 billion in local funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities and states, with a rainy-day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion, budget autonomy makes D.C. even stronger.

The repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy; it is a blight on this country’s most revered principle—local control.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Floor Statement on Palmer Amendment on Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act

I claim time in opposition to this amendment. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment prohibits the District of Columbia from using its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, to enforce a local anti-discrimination law, giving employers license, in the name of religion, to discriminate against employees, their spouses and their dependents based on their private, constitutionally protected reproductive health decisions. Contrary to the sponsor’s claim, the D.C. law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions. The law states expressly: “This act shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to a reproductive health decision.”

The 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.

The D.C. law is valid under both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Indeed, the law has been in effect for more than a year, 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. The D.C. law applies to all employers, does not target religion and promotes workplace equality. Under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to D.C., 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. law is the least restrictive means to do so.

The D.C. law protects religious liberty. The law is subject to constitutional and statutory exceptions to discrimination laws. 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 religion and political views. Under the D.C. law, employees must be willing to carry out employers’ 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 right to self-government.

I reserve the balance of my time.