meet the standards. they are the same as the old bulbs, except they last longer, use less electricity and save consumers money. we heard for the energy efficiency standards restrict choice. if you shop for light bulbs, you know that isn't true either. modern incandescent light bulbs and l.e.d. of every shape, size and color are available. consumers never had more choice. the efficiency standards spurns innovation that expanded options for consumers. they claim they would cost consumers money. in fact, the opposite is true. when the standards are in full effect, the average american family will save about $100 every year. that is $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. but this rider threatens those savings and consumer groups have consistently opposed this rider. here's the reality. the 2007 efficiency standards for light bulbs were enacted with bipartisan support and continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. u.s. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standard. the effect of the rider is is to allow them to sell old light bulbs in the united states. this is unfair to glesk producers who invested millions of dollars to make efficient bulbs. why would we want to pass a rider that would spurn manufacturers to ignore our laws and penalize u.s. manufacturers who are following our laws. the rider poses an additional threat to u.s. manufacturing. the energy bill requires the department of energy to establish updated light bulb efficiency standards and provided that if updated standards are not updated. incandescent light bulbs can't meet this standard. this rider blocks the department of energy from issuing the standard and ensures that the backstop will kick in. it is this rider that could effect tifferly ban the incandescent light bulb. it stops jobs in pennsylvania, ohio and illinois, to name but three. it will stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested until innovation. this rider reverses years of technological progress, and increase electricity bills and worsen pollution. time to choose common sense over rigid ideology and time to listen who agree that this rider is harmful. i urge all members to vote no on the burgess light bulb rider. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas has 30 seconds remaining. mr. burgess: at the end of 2007, george will observed the united states congress had two jobs, deliver the mail and defend the border and has done neither but what it did was ban the incandescent bulb. this is a commonsense amendment and deserves passage and i yield back. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. kaptur: madam chair. i ask for a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania, a member of the committee, seek recognition? mr. dent: purpose of offering an amendment. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dent of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to finalize, implement or enforce the proposed rule entitled standards ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits as identified by regulation identification number 1904-ac 87. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. dent: i rise today to offer an amendment to stop overbearing department of energy regulations from driving up the cost of ceiling fans and driving up consumption prices. i offer this with mrs. blackburn and mr. rokita. the department of energy is currently considering a proposed rule entitled standard ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits which would impose requirements for ceiling fans sold in the united states. this regulation if implemented would increase the cost of ceiling fans by nearly double thereby reducing the purchase. the end result would be heavy reliance on central air conditioning and increased energy consumption. ceiling fans are energy efficient method of cooling using between 20 and 100 what thes during operation. that is an order of magnitude of less energy that can safe up to 14%. the department of energy's proposed standard is a regulatory solution in search of a problem. the ceiling fan industry has demonstrated a strong commitment as evidenced by the increased in energy star in the market. the industry continues to develop savings this is all taking place absent the heavy hand of government regulation. at a time when homeowners are trying to reduce energy usage we shouldn't increase the price of ceiling fans on an efficient product. ceiling fans can reduce the dependence on foreign oil. ceiling fans are inexpensive easy way to reduce cooling costs and we can't stifle innovation. and i would urge all my colleagues to stop this burdensome this government regulation and reduce regulation. mrs. blackburn: i want to thank mr. dent and mr. rokita for their work on this issue. the department of energy is so determined to redesign the ceiling fans that they have released a 101-page document which evaluates the potential energy savings of the new regulation. well what we have found is that just like stretching their tentacles, what they are doing is pricing people out of the ceiling fan market. these new regulations would significantly impair the ability of ceiling fan manufacturers like hunter fans in memphis tennessee, to produce reasonably-priced highly decorative fans. it will not only place a higher price tags but increase homeowners reliance on ceiling systems that are less energy efficient. what we are seeing is that with ceiling fans, many of our constituents save as much as 14% on their energy use to cool their homes and can save 40% of their air conditioning bills by creating that makes the room feel a little bit cooler. new regulations will curb and placing ceiling fans in laundry rooms and master bathrooms. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back to mr. dent. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. mr. dent: i yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has one minute remaining. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. rokita: i rise today today in strong support of the amendment and i thank the gentlewoman from tennessee for her continued work. it is, frankly, i look around the room tonight and i think it is ridiculous that we are standing here talking about ceiling fans. this is what it has come to. the bureaucracy in this town is now telling the american people that they know what belongs on their ceiling more than most people do. has the government run amuck. disregard of the practical regulations. certain amount of energy would be saved by require greater efficiency disregarding the fact if you price people out of this market, you are going to have to buy a cooling system that is even more expensive, buy fans that are more expensive. let's get out of this business. we have more important things to do than worrying about bureaucrats and what they decide what people need on their ceilings. let's remember, this amendment was adopted in 2014 on the floor and it was in the base text of a 2014 bill. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i seek recognition in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i oppose the gentleman's amendment given it is a solution in search of a problem. since their implementation, standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits has saved american consumers are you ready, $.5 billion billion, in energy costs and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 22 metric tons. nearly a decade ago, why do we have this system? because three states, california maryland and new york created their own unique standards for ceiling fans test procedures and performance and these varying requirements created difficulties for manufacturers marketing practices across all 50 states. in response, the ceiling fan industry asked the federal government for a national standard that would reduce unnecessary complexities. since that time the department of energy, has not even proposed a new rule on ceiling fans, so it is premature to react to what might be in a new rule. even if a new rule is proposed, implementation is years away. the department's analysis so far has shown that options exist for increasing ceiling fan efficiency that are cost effective for manufacturers and the consumers. any upgrades will enable consumers to save money by saving energy, also moving our country closer to its low carbon future. industry cannot anticipate how much their manufacturing costs might increase, whether their business model would be turned upside down or the rule would result in energy growth. the department of energy has conducted extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, kline you hadding the companies themselves and any potential indirect effects on air conditioning use. the amendment assures that consumers will be stuck with less efficient fans and higher energy costs. i don't see why we would want to do this. i object to the amendment as proposed and urge a no vote by my colleagues. yield back my remaining time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. napolitano by california, at the end of the bill before the short title, none of the funds made available in this act may be used in section 2101 of the water resources and redevelopment act 33 united states code 2238-b or sex 210 of the water resources development act, 33 united states code 2238. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentlewoman from california and member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. napolitano: i mrs. napolitano: i rise in support of this amendment. i thank repive defazio the ranking member of the subcommittee for offering this critical amendment which highlights the formulas that were included in wrrda and passed the house by a vote of 212-4. it said any accounts above $898 billion, the baseline appropriated in fiscal year 012, should be, doesn't say would be could be, it says should be accounted based on the following parameters. at least 10% to the tpwhrakes. at least 10% to donor ports new york, new jersey seattle, tacoma los angeles, and long beach. extended uses, dredging, removal of contaminated sediment and/or subsidies to shippers to continue to use ports. st. louis 5% goes to underserved harbors. 10% to emerging harbors. the 2016 core budget does not include the wrrda 2014 harbor maintenance trust allocations. does not include them. this amendment is needed to require the corps to implement these funds as directed by congress. madam chairman this amendment is especially important to provide fairness to my state of california and to other ports. all ports in california only receive 15%, this is all ports, back of what their shippers pay into that harbor maintenance trust fund. last year, the users of the ports of los angeles and long beach alone paid $263 million in harbor maintenance taxes and received zero. i repeat zero, back in harbor maintenance fund. this is terribly unfair and it is, as far as we're concerned illegal. this amendment will ensure that it brings back a little bit of that fairness to donor harbors by providing them with a small portion of what they paid into the system. i do want to add that this amendment is supported by the american association of port authorities and the ports of los angeles and long beach. i do ask for support of the defazio amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. does anyone seek recognition in opposition to the amendment? mrs. napolitano: i request a yes vote and eyield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stivers of ohio. at the end of the bill before she short title insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the cape wind energy product on the outer continental shelf off massachusetts nantucket sound. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: madam chair, the amendment i'm offering tonight is simple. it prohibits funding for the cape wind project off nantucket sunday. -- sound. this amendment was offered last year and accepted unanimously and i hope it will be again. the problem with this project isn't that it's renewable energy. we all support renewable energy. this is renewable energy that is not supporting american jobs in fact they've outsourced their turbines to denmark and turbine platforms to germany. the other issue is this project has been quite controversial and i think that we don't want another solyndra. so this amendment was adopted last year by a voice vote. i urge a yes vote and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2028, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2028 and has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 231 i call up h.r.res. 43, disapproving the action of the district of columbia council and approve -- in approving the reproduct uff health nondiscrimination amendment act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.j.res. 43, disapproving the action of the district of columbia council in approving the reproductive health nondiscrimination amendment act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the joint resolution is considered read. 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, mr. chaffetz. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: i yield the remainder of my time to mrs. black for controlling the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. black: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker. unfortunately, our thought this is evening have to be with ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee , elijah cummings, who could not be here due to ongoing events in his baltimore district. i ask unanimous consent that the statement of ranking member elijah cummings, strongly opposing h.j.res. 43 be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, general leave will be granted on the measure. ms. norton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: madam speaker, resentbility does not begin to explain our response to this resolution. republicans 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 -- 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 herks of indiana was fired for using in vote row fertilization to become pregnant. jennifer maudlin of ohio was fired for having nonmarital sex. and becoming pregnant. christina diaz of ohio was fired for using artificial insemination to become pregnant. sheila evansson of montana was fired for using artificial insemination to become pregnant. michelle mikuska of new york was fired foring in 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 legit -- legitimate governmental interest. the d.c. bill aploys 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 7 of the 1964 civil rights act, which i am -- which i enforce 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 religious -- 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 -- 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. . nevertheless, when members of congress express concerns, the d.c. government, in order to eliminate any doubt pass a new version of the bill that says, and i quote 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 a-- approval 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 quote, to relieve congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local district matters, end quote. d.c. employment and reproductive health laws are not among those exceptions. this evening, i ask my republican colleagues to live up to their own recently passed fiscal year 2016 budget, which calls on the federal government to let states and cities govern their own affairs. and i quote, 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 says 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 district resolution to protect employees reproductive health decisions and protect workplace equality and protect the district's right to self-government as taxpaying american citizens, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the president's veto threat on this resolution. without objection. the gentlewoman reserves and gentlewoman from tennessee is recognize dollars. mrs. black: 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 all americans. first the constitution mandates congress oversee the district of columbia. article 1, section 8, clause 17, makes clear, congress exercises and i quote, exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district closed, quote, of columbia. in that vein, congress passed the home rule act which gives the district some autonomy but home rule 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 long-standing 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 postponeits vote because of its legal problems. in a december letter of 2014, mayor gray explained d.c.'s attorney general found that the bill, and i quote raised serious concerns under the constitution and under the religious freedom restoration act of 1993. he went on to say and again, i quote, real goss organizations religiously affiliated organizations, real -- religiously and political organizations may have strong first amendment and grounds for challenging the laws' application to them. to remedy these problems, the mayor requested the council include an exemption to protect the political and religious liberties of the first amendment and religious freedom restoration act that are designed to secure. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter mayor gray's december 2 2014 letter to the d.c. council into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. black: while the council postponed the vote they didn't take the mayor's advice. once again mayor gray wrote the council again voicing his disapproval for the bill. in that letter he suggested, and i quote, if the council wishes to adopt this bill, it should clarify the d.c. human rights acting 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, closed quote. again, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter mayor gray's december 17, 014 letter to the d.c. council into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. black: despite these warnings, the council ignored the former mayor's request passed the bill and sent it to congress. if they had taken the mayor's advice, we would not be here today. 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. and 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. and both the mayor and the d.c. council know that this is a problem. in fact, in february the mayor admitted that the bill was ambiguous and requested that the council pass temporary emergency legislation clarifying that the bill doesn't require employer supervised coverage for reproductive health decisions. madam speaker, once again, i ask unanimous consent to enter the mayor's february 2 2015 letter to the d.c. council into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. black: that fix was only temporary. and does not address the constitutional concerns i share with mayor gray. given this a.m. big youity and no permanent fix, the bill is unconstitutional and cannot stand given the recent supreme court decision in hobby lobby. protecting the liberties 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 patently false. as a registered nurse, i have brought 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 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 in both the d.c. and federal law, as they should. specific to concerns regarding how this would impact women using contraceptives, the equal opportunity employment commission makes clear and i quote, an employee cannot discharge a female -- excuse me, let me go back, they make clear an employer could not discharge a female employee from her job because she uses contraceptives. those protections would not be protected if my resolution were to be signed into law. madam speaker, the law is fundamentally dishonest and purports to be an act but targets the fundamental first amendment freedoms. the very city charged with protecting those same freedoms. we must act to protect religious freedom and offer relief from this off presence i have -- oppressive law. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: may i point out, i have named five women in five different states that have been discriminated against because of language precisely of the kind the district of columbia law means to avoid. the former mayor and former attorney general have had issues with the bill, they are no longer in office. nevertheless the current mayor and the current city council have reviewed those exceptions, 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 have, in fact, endorsed this bill. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from new york, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lowey: this is a new low in the war on women. women have been fired for using invitro fertilization fired for being pregnant before they are married. this isn't a hypothetical or carbous story from the 1950's. this is happening in america in the 21st century. the washington, d.c. council voted unanimously to protect workers from this type of discrimination because they understand what house republicans must not that employees should be judged by their performance, not their reproductive health care choices. hardworking women already have enough on their plate making 78 cents on the dollar compared to men, acting as caregivers without paid medical leave the majority doesn't have the courage to bring this bill in the light of day. congress should be focused on growing the economy 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. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentlewoman from d.c. reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker, i want to yield to someone who has worked very hard on this legislation, the mr. flores of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. flores: i thank the gentlewoman from tennessee. i rise today in support of h.j.res. 43 to formally disapprove of the action of the district of columbia that clearly violates religious liberty. i thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from tennessee, for her work on this important issue and 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 nondiscrim -- nondiscrimination act does discriminate. the d.c. measure tells values-based organizations that they can no longer live and work according to their values. a christian school would be forced to pay for insurance policies. 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 president and the first amendment to the constitution. more than 80% of americans believe that individuals should be free to run their businesses and organizations according to their beliefs without the government telling them what to do. and -- in 2013, the supreme court upheld the opinion ruling in burwell vs. hobby lobby that employers have the right to operate their business according to their religious beliefs and principles. most importantly, hour ho -- 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 free throw dom that spurred the first generation of immigrants to come here an it's the practice of religious freedom that's brought people from all over the world from all races and creeds, to our shores ever since. religious free dm may be one of our oldest tenets and principles but it's one we must constantly strive to work and defend. this is not about one city or 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. i urge my colleagues to join the gentlewoman from tennessee and me in supporting today's resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: 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 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. i'm pleased to yield now two minutes to my good friend from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: madam speaker this resolution is an insult to women everywhere. what business is it of an employer or anyone else for that matter, 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 of the-repeated claims that it wishes to scale back the overreach of the federal government. yet here they're reaching into personal lives. and the resolution is being proposed by the so-called party of states' right. they're not proposing a federal law. they're 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 congressmen 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 health care 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 vote row 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 nondiscrimination amendment act does not anyonish the right of religious freedom. -- 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 different claims to rights in a simple and straightforward way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expire. mrs. maloney: i urge a no vote to this new low in public policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. hartzler who is -- who has been a big protector of life and has been a great colleague of mine since our election in 2010. i yield two minutes to mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you madam speaker. i rise today in support of h.j.res. 43 and i commend the gentlelady 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 bheefs. the d.c. city council 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 capitol should not be a place for people's free -- 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 -- 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 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i must reject the gentlewoman's desire to protect organizations or residents in d.c. no resident in d.c. is -- 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 recognize -- i yield to the minority leader one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the distinguished dell fwat from the district of columbia. i -- delegate with the district of columbia. i thank her for her relentless, persistent effective leadership and representation of the district of columbia. i come to the floor, madam speaker, 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 -- to enable businesses to fire their employees for the reproductive health decisions that they make. and by the -- and not only that, not only the decisions that the employee makes, but the decisions that his spouse make, or a dependent, a child makes. allowing employers to fire employees for using birth control or to engage in in vote row fertilization, an answer to the prayers of so many families. or in any other reproductive health service. it's 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 had 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, because this isn't what republicans think throughout the country. house republicans need to recognize that personal health care 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 family. 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 beliefs in reducing the role of federal government? not so for the families of the district of columbia. this doesn't mean you. with that, i urge our colleagues to vote no on this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from district of columbia reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith who is the chairman of the pro-life caucus, he's a co-sponsor of this bill and he's at the center of life. i yield three minutes to mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mr. smith: 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 my 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 for many yores for fundamental conscience rights and for attempting to respect human life to the greatest extent possible. you know, i agree with six distinguished law professors, and i'll include their letter fully in the record who wrote the d.c. council last november and said, and i quote in part, attempts to make employers prevent decisions based on their personal 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 the organization's policies. the secretary of education for the archdiocese of washington wrote, every -- wrote every member of congress and he said that this 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 headquarters 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 directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil rights of the unborn. christian and -- we come together to oppose the bill. we believe it would infringe to make employment decisions when necessary to their religious decisions. i have had hearings to speak out against anti-semitism said, the bill would require all employers including religious schools such as ours to hire or retain employees who act in defiance of our mission. it would take away our right to carry out our practices. the d.c. has no tolerance and i agree with former mayor vincent gray. i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: 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, d.c.'s law prohibits religious and here i'm reading from the law, and -- 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 through or giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion, as is calculated by that organization tore promote the religious or political principles for which it is is established or maintained. that's the text madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my friend from illinois, ms. duck worth. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. duckworth: and i thank the gentlewoman from him d.c. i stand today in opposition to this resolution. i want to make it clear the consequences of the misguided resolution that we considering today because it is not about religious freedom, it's about the freedom to make incredibly personal and significant decisions without having to consult your bose. i enjoid of becoming the mother for the first time. this miracle wasn't made possible without the aid of invitro fertilization. this was not the only way -- this was likely the only way i could have a child. every woman in this country should have the same opportunity to start a family and no woman should be fired for doing so. this should be common sense. the resolution would remove legal protections ensuring this is the case in d.c. the law we are voting to disapprove would prevent story a language arts teacher in indiana, she was fired after school authorities discovered that she and her husband used invitro fert lidsation. they south treatments after learning she suffered from a condition that caused infertility and was told it was contrary to church teachings. last december, a injure sided with her awarding her damages this the case. employees like emily should be judged at work based on their job performance not on private decisions they make with their families and doctors. that's what the d.c. council did in passing the resolution. i urge all members to oppose this attempt by the majority to limit the rights of people of the people of district of columbia. the last thing we should be doing is punishing couples who are having difficulties starting a family. i yield bang. mrs. black: i yield one minute to jody hice from georgia. mr. hice: i rise in support of h.j.res. 43 to protect different organizations from having to choose between their faith and their job. this is not a war on women, it is an outright war on religious liberties, participating in offensive acts to stay in business. and the d.c. council passed 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. we have, as congress, a duty to disapprove of what the city council of d.c. has done and i urge my colleagues to do so and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: how much time remapes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 11 minutes remaining. ms. norton: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new mexico the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognizeded. ms. lujan grisham: this resolution would allow employers against employees based on the interests of their health and their families. if employers don't like the personal health care decisions this resolution would allow employers to fire them. is it right to allow employers to fire women who use contraception or try to conseeve through invitro fertilization. they should be judged on job performance and not on their private medical decisions. no wrun has a right to interper fer. nobody. not an employer and not the house of representatives and not any of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i want to start to thank my ranking member representative cummings, i feel for him and his city. i know he would have liked to be here but i have the utmost respect for him and wish nothing but the best. and i thank the decorum and the success we have had. we have had good gates and disagreed on issues and agreed on issues that we had come before us and i thank the gentlelady from the district who cares passionately about her service and the people of washington, d.c., but we have good success in our committee in having these vigorous gates and i thank her for that discussion and i know she speaks from the heart on this. we do believe that this was a timely inprote bill to bring up. it is not a common occurrence and a lot of what washington, d.c., does and passes isn't anything of any controversy whatsoever. when you have the attorney general for the district of columbia saying this has problems with the constitution, problems in the law, when you have mayor gray make the same case that this has problems, i hope that both sides would recognize no matter how they vote that this law that was transmitted to the oversight and government reform committee is problem matic and they have admitted such. they know that it's problematic and we have a role and responsibility tore add our voice to that. that's what the constitution calls for. the constitution makes it clear that congress does have the ability to exercise the legislative authority over the district of columbia in. the -- the overwhelming pieces of legislation that get transmitted to us continue to sail on. but the legislation as passed by the d.c. council left us no choice to act, the bill that affects the hiring practices that provides no exemption for religious or political organizations that work to advance certain beliefs. and because of this, the bill fails to ensure that protections are guaranteed under the first amendment. as i said before the former d.c. mayor vincent democrat, wrote the d.c. council twice twice, warning that this bill was unconstitutional. to fix the problem, former mayor gray included an exemption. but the council and the current mayor ig norad the request which would have aleffyated the constitutional skrns. the current mayor ignored that. i don't think we would be standing here today talking about this bill. washington, d.c.,'s current mayor, also saw the problems with the bill. she requested the council pass temporary, and that's important, temporary, emergency legislation clarifying that the bill doesn't require them. and employer does not agree with. so that's an important part of this discussion. that the legislation is only temporary. so the bill remains unclear as to what it requires d.c. employers to cover. the other thing i would put in place here, washington, d.c., has been in place for a long time, a long time. and this legislation has not been in place. we're not trying to erase something, the bill that was transmitted to us is problematic and there are ways to remedy this. some say it has been fixed by this temporary legislation, but that hasn't been transmitted to us. the d.c. council had the opportunity to provide us that temporary. maybe they will in the future. i don't know. but that's not the bill before us today. what i'm arguing for is the same thing, same thing in concept as the washington, d.c. attorney general, same thing in concept that the d.c. mayor gray has said and same thing that the current mayor has said is problematic because she wanted to clarify because the very arguments -- and we aren't trying to effect that. we are right. that we aren't trying to get into this dangerous unprecedented territory which a lot of us find offensive. i think what we have done is very reasonable in our approach. we have very delivering approaches in mindset i get that. but i do appreciate the debate. i appreciate the gentlewoman from the district of columbia and our ranking member mr. cummings and our thoughts and prayers are upon him and the people of baltimore, maryland and i would hope they would look to his leadership and what he is telling the people to calmly, calmly discuss these issues as we are calmly discussing these issues tonight. i urge passage of this. the clock has run out. we only have 30 days. and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. and i do appreciate mrs. black for her heart and passion on this and she cares deeply about these issues and we all do. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves and the gentlewoman from district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i thank mr. chaffetz for the way he has run the committee and with respect to thr controversial legislation and has allowed members to speak and very civil on both sides. i would like to offer that i have already read the text of -- the text of d.c. law that exempts both religious and political organizations from limiting employment. in the way that other mes must. that they may have, based on their religious views and their political views, pro-life organizations are protected, churches are protected. the citation, the continuous citation of the former mayor and the former attorney general would make you think 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 jamsly passed the bill again. the only reason we were told that the insurance matter is still outstanding it's painful when you hear that, the only reason it isn't final law is because the district of columbia has to transmit to this body every law, it has to lay over for at least 30 days before it becomes time. if we had our way, if we had the same rights 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. i am pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, mrs. lawrence of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. ms. laurns: madam speaker, i address you -- mrs. lawrence: madam speaker i cress you in opposition to this. d.c. residents deserve to be protected from discrimination in the workplace. everyone should have the ability to make a private health care decision including when, how, they will start a family and without the fear of losing their job or face regular talluation 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 vote row fertilization to become pregnant. contrary to claims by my republican colleagues, this bill does not impose any new requirements on employees to cover or to pay for any reproductive health services. are women's rights not guaranteed by the constitution just as men's in this country? this is not about whether you or i have an abortion or whether you and i use i.v.f. madam secretary, 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 a 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. it does not impose any additional requirements on employees based on their religious beliefs. i stand here today, madam chair, as a member of the largest number of women in this congress and i can tell you i'm offended by this bill. and i stand here today in opposition. i yield become my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee a co-sponsor of the bill, and one of my colleagues from my state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you. thank you, madam chairman. i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for her work on this issue and i also thank chairman chaffetz for the work that he's done on this issue. you know, they -- both the gentlelady and the chairman have mentioned the work and the comments by mayor gray regarding this policy. and the policy by the rhnda. it is the reason that we are here tonight. you can say it 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 chairman 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 various -- of their very establishment. that is a prohibition that we're addressing with this resolution that we are bringing forward tonight. i think it's important to note, the resolution doesn't take away any rights. 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's important to note that in 2012, the supreme court unanimously affirmed the rights of religious organizations and we stand tonight with that affirmation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i recognize my good friend mr. scott for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that two letters be entered into the record, 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 board, over 20 organizations, both letters in opposition to the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: we're running out of time, so i recognize ms. beatty from washington, a member of the committee for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for one and a half minutes. mrs. beatty: thank you madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to this extreme and misguided resolution. madam speaker, i'm deeply troubled that this chamber continues to waste its time attacking women's health rather than crafting sloughs for the american people. instead of addressing the real -- ms. delbene: instead of addressing the real issue, this is an attempt to inject ideology into a woman's health care choices. a woman's health care choses should be made between her and her doctor, not her boss. by overturning d.c.'s act this would allow employers to fire women based on their decision about birth control. all americans should be able to make personal decisions without fear of being fired or demoted. now is time to sop undermining women's reproductive rights and focus on the actual needs of working families. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: at this time i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 0 seconds. mr. rothfus: let me repeat the opinion of former d.c. mayor vincent gray and his attorney general. they believe this law is legally problematic and raises serious concerns under the constitution. madam speaker, many organizations in the district have asked congress for help including the cardinal of the catholic diocese and i ask unanimous consent that place into the record the april 16 letter to the editor from the cardinal. our nation has a long history of tolerance. one of the words inscribed on the rostrum here is tolerance. we need to approve this resolution to be tolerant of our religious constitution institutions. i urge my colleagues to support h.j.res. 43. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia has phi minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from tennessee has five and a half minutes. ms. norton: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady 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 house oversight committee 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's 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. and i realize as well that home rule has been given under that authority and this congress has , in the right thinking, has allowed for the district of columbia to rule its city on the basis of good governance of the city -- of the citizens of this particular community. that is the right thing to do. they are tax paying americans. and so i'm disturbed by h.j.res. 43 because it seeks to cause confusion where there's 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. and yes, the first amendment gives the freedom of religion but our gentlelady 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 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, protect the reproductive health decisions of the spouses and dependents, and prohibits an employer from firing an employee for using in vote row fertilization or birth control. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: so in essence, 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 10th amendment. i know d.c. is not a state but what i would say is this bill has been clarified or this law has been clarified in the district of columbia of we are intruding. the rights are protected under this the -- under the ninth amendment and this resolution is out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the jerusalem's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, who is the subcommittee chairman 240e6 oversight and government reform and a co-upon or of -- co-sponsor of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meadows: thank you madam speaker. i rise today and want to reach out to my colleague, the dell fwat from d.c., to one, say that i appreciate the tone and the nor 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, madam speaker, that much of what has been talked about tonight about there being clarity is simply not the case. madam speaker. 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 indeed this particular legislation would indeed do exactly what the delegate from d.c. has said that it would do. so 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. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is ms. norton: i appreciate, mr. meadows, made every effort to try to find some accommodation with the district of columbia and i appreciated that so much. we were unfortunately unable to do so because the exemption he sought would have swallowed the equal employment laws and he tried very hard and i appreciate the spirit he has acted as our subcommittee chair. i yield two minutes to mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. the gentlewoman will have 3/4 of a minute remaining. mr. scott: i raise in opposition to h.j.res. 43. this would protect employees based on their reproductive health decisions. the states of indiana and arkansas attempted to pascrell gouse freedom bills that are an attempt to permit discrimination. tonight we are allowing employers to refuse to hire a worker because of their productive and notwithstanding the protection provided to the employers. in 1993 when we passed the act better known as refra. but since then, we have seen attempts by congress and some states to use so-called religious liberty or religious freedom measures to undermine protections. this resolution would allow claims of a sincere lie held religious belief to justify illegal religious discrimination. anyone could claim a serious ly-held religious belief, race, religion. the district of columbia got it right. this law protects washington, d.c. citizens from discrimination based on reproductive decisions. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.j.res. 43. the speaker pro tempore: jabts. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from from tennessee has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from from district of columbia has 3/4 of a minute. mrs. black: i yield 0 seconds to the gentleman from from com for 0 seconds. mr. lamborn: i rise in support which will so the so-called reproductive act. this bill passed by discriminates against religious and pro-life advocacy groups. the d.c. groups for their employees. this law represents a flagrant disregard for the conscious rights. i urge my fellow members of the house to vote yes on this important resolution of disapproval. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from district of columbia is recognized . ms. norton: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from d.c. reserves. mrs. black: i yield 30 second to the the gentleman from georgia for georgia. >> i rise today in support of h.j.res. 4 , to disapprove the action and approving the amendment act of 201. which i believe clearly violates the constitutional freedoms of the district of columbia. this isn't about the citizens of one city but billion protecting the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our constitution for all americans. this is making sure that government doesn't force employers with deeply held religious beliefs. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.j.res. 3. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from from district of columbia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pit inengineer. mr. pittenger: congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. we dare to up uphold the free exercise of religion and ensure that no church or religious institution in the district of columbia is forced to violate their convictions. yes, we have a solemn obligation to support our commitment so i urge my colleagues to support h j. resolution and block the d.c. of bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. norton: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: drr fleming is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. fleming: madam speaker, the question tonight is clearly the aadvice ration of the u.s. constitution of the district of columbia. don't take my word for it. even the mayor of d.c. who agreed with the council warned his colleagues that it was illegal insufficient and raises concerns and other freedoms. it discriminates located in the nation's impinging on the freedom of religion for advocacy groups and pro-life affiliates. so i yield back the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from district of columbia reserves? ms. norton: reserves. mrs. black: i do not have any more speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the woman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: the tyranny to interfere with local government and tyranny interference with the most private decision they make concerning their reproductive health. vote no. stop this tyranny in the district of columbia before it spreads throughout the united states of america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. black: and i appreciate the robust debate that we had today on this important issue and as i close, i would like to remind that this is legislation that has constitution problems. cited over a over again since its inception and recognized by both the democrats and the republicans of the constitutional problems. 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 hire with their core missions as protected by the first amendment. it is imperative that they ensure that the protections granted to each and every american by the first amendment of the constitution. as a matter of fact, folks tried to say what this resolution would do. it is a simple resolution. one-page resolution and has a few sentences to it. disapproving the resolution. and that is simply what it does. we have the constitutional authority to give up or down vote. we are not amending. if this resolution of disapproval is adopted by this body it will put back into place what i already law. it will not be taking away any rights. now, i urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution and i yield back. 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 engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. >> recorded vote. the clerk: disapproving the resolution of the d.c. council. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> now i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: yages are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]