49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–99 

DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN 

APPROVING THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NON-DISCRIMINATION 

AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014 

APRIL 30, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.J. Res. 43] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommend that the joint resolution do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 4 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 6 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 6 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 6 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 6 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 6 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 7 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 7 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 7 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 8 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 § 602(c), ‘‘District of Columbia Home Rule Act.’’ 

2 Councilmembers introduce B20–0790, http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf. 3Public Hearing on B20–0790, http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790- 

HearingRecord2.pdf. 4Four Councilmembers voted in favor with one absence and none voting against. 

5Letter from Mayor Gray to DC Council Chairman Mendelson, December 2, 2014, (10). 

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Mayor-s-Letter-regarding-LegislativeMeeting1.pdf. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

House Joint Resolution 43 is a disapproval resolution of the District of Columbia’s passage of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (RHNDA). RHNDA would restrict the ability of organizations within the District of Columbia 

to make employment decisions in line with their deeply held beliefs 

regarding reproductive health. These restrictions would apply to 

both religious and political organizations. 

The ‘‘District of Columbia Home Rule Act’’ provides the District 

of Columbia with a system of self-governance and greater autonomy, while maintaining Congress’ constitutionally-derived authority to oversee all matters relating to the nation’s capital. The Home 

Rule Act provides for a 30 day congressional review period (60 day 

for any law related to the criminal code) for any law passed by the 

Council of the District of Columbia (the Council), during which, 

Congress has the ability to pass a Joint Resolution of Disapproval 

(JRD) to strike down any bill that the District passes. The JRD 

must be passed by both Chambers and transmitted to the President for his signature within the 30-day review period for the JRD 

to take effect and the District law to be invalidated before it becomes law.1

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, the House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform (the Committee) moved to favorably report H.J. Res. 43 to the House. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On May 6, 2014, the Council of the District of Columbia introduced RHNDA during its Legislative Meeting.2 The bill was subsequently noticed for a Public Hearing that was conducted on June 

23, 2014 by the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.3

The Committee marked up the bill on October 15, 2014 and voted 

the bill out of Committee.4

On December 2, 2014, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray sent a letter to 

the District Council regarding legislation that would be coming before the Council.5 In the letter, the Mayor referred to a review conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of D.C. that raised 

concerns about RHNDA. The Mayor cited, ‘‘significant legal concerns’’ over the bill. Specifically, Mayor Gray wrote, ‘‘[a]ccording to 

the OAG, the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution 

and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).’’ 

Mayor Gray warned the Council that ‘‘[r]eligious organizations, religiously-affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may have strong First Amendment 

and Religious Freedom Restoration Act grounds for challenging the 

law’s application to them.’’ The Mayor also cautioned the Council 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

6Letter from Mayor Gray to DC Council Chairman Mendelson, December 17, 2014, (7). 

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Mayor-s-Letter-regarding-LegislativeMeeting2.pdf. 7Mayor Bowser defeated Mayor Gray in the Democratic primary for D.C. Mayor. Mayor Bowser went on to win the general election. Prior to becoming Mayor, she served as a Councilwoman 

and voted to approve RHNDA. 8D.C. Act 20–593, January 23, 2015. http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790- 

SignedAct.pdf. 9 At the public hearing on RHNDA, Councilmember David Grosso stated, ‘‘And what we’re saying here in the District of Columbia is that [ . . . ] we believe that in the District of Columbia 

[. . .] you should include contraceptive coverage in your coverage for insurance [ . . . ] that all 

employers should do that.’’ Public Hearing on B20–0790, June 23, 2014. 10The District of Columbia Home Rule Act allows the District to pass emergency legislation 

(as determined by § 412(a)). This legislation is not subject to the 30 day review period 

(§ 602(c)(1)). This legislation is only effective for 90 days. Pursuant to § 413 of the ‘‘Rules of Organization and Procedure for the Council of the District of Columbia,’’ the Council may introduce 

Temporary Legislation that expires after 225 days. 11D.C. Act 21–18, ‘‘Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2015,’’ March 26, 2015. http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33471/B21-0102- 

SignedAct.pdf. 12D.C. Act 21–48, ‘‘Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2015,’’ April 11, 2015. http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33472/B21-0103- 

SignedAct.pdf. 13D.C. Act 21–48, ‘‘Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2015,’’ April 11, 2015. http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33472/B21-0103- 

SignedAct.pdf. 

that the bill could be read as only protecting one sex’s reproductive 

health decisions and thus a violation of the Fifth Amendment. 

The Council’s vote on RHNDA was subsequently pushed back to 

December 17, 2014, and Councilmembers worked with the Office of 

the Attorney General on the concerns raised by the Mayor. Mayor 

Gray ultimately sent another letter to the Council on December 17, 

2014, thanking the Council for their efforts to improve the bill 

while reiterating all of his concerns regarding the First and Fifth 

Amendments and RFRA. 

On December 17, 2014, the Council voted on an amendment to 

RHNDA to address the Fifth Amendment concerns. The Council 

unanimously passed the amended version of RHNDA (12–0) that 

same day. The version of the bill passed by the Council contained 

no provisions or amendments that addressed the First Amendment 

and RFRA concerns of Mayor Gray and others.6

The Council chose to hold the bill until January 8, 2015, when 

it was transmitted to Mayor Muriel Bowser.7 Mayor Bowser signed 

the bill on January 23, 2015.8 The bill was transmitted to Congress 

for the 30 day congressional review period on March 6, 2015. The 

review period is expected to expire on May 2, 2015. 

The language of RHNDA is vague and failed to state that it did 

not require employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception and other reproductive health decisions. The Council acknowledged this concern.9 In response, the Council developed emergency 

and temporary legislation to clarify this ambiguity.10

The emergency legislation was enacted on March 3, 2015,11 and 

expires on June 24, 2015. The temporary legislation was signed by 

Mayor Bowser on April 11, 2015,12 and is subject to a 30 day congressional review period. The temporary legislation signed on April 

11, 2015 was transmitted to Congress on April 22, 2015 and is expected to become law on June 4, 2015. The temporary legislation 

would be law for 225 days from the date of becoming law. The 

emergency and temporary legislation make clear that RHNDA does 

not require employers ‘‘to provide insurance coverage related to a 

reproductive health decision.’’ 13


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Despite the emergency and temporary legislation that has been 

passed, there has been no permanent legislative fix offered at this 

point. 

In its current form, RHNDA violates the First Amendment and 

the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Further, the language of the bill is sufficiently vague that it could be 

read to require employers within the District of Columbia to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health products with 

which the employers disagree. 

As a result of these fundamental issues with RHNDA, the Committee decided to markup H.J. Res. 43 in disapproval of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On April 13, 2015, Rep. Diane Black (R–TN) introduced H.J.Res. 

43, ‘‘Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 

approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014.’’ Rep. Mark Meadows (R–NC) and Rep. Bill Flores (R–TX) are original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

On April 13, 2015 the Committee noticed a Full Committee Business Meeting to consider H.J. Res. 43 on April 16, 2015. On April 

15, 2015, the Committee noticed that the Business Meeting was 

postponed to April 21, 2015. 

On April 21, 2015, the Committee conducted a Full Committee 

Business Meeting to consider H.J. Res. 43. 

Amendments were not in order during Full Committee consideration of the joint resolution under the provisions of the District of 

Columbia Home Rule Act. As a result, no amendments were considered in Committee. No amendments can be considered on the floor. 

H.J. Res. 43 was reported favorably out of Committee on a recorded vote. The ayes were 20 and the nays were 16. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

Amendments were not in order during Full Committee consideration of the joint resolution under the provisions of the District of 

Columbia Home Rule Act. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 21, 2015 the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 43, by roll 

call vote, a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There was one recorded vote during consideration of H.J. Res. 43: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 HR99.001
6 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill disapproves the action of 

the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive 

Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. As such this 

bill does not relate to employment or access to public services and 

accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goal or objective of this joint resolution is to disapprove the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health 

Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of this joint resolution establishes or reauthorizes a 

program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report 

from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 

section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this joint resolution does 

not direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the joint resolution does not establish 

or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether 

the provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This joint resolution does not include any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

H.J. Res. 43—A joint resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health 

Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 

H.J. Res. 43 would repeal a recently enacted District of Columbia 

law. Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the Congress 

has 30 days to disapprove laws enacted by the District of Columbia. CBO estimates that the new District of Columbia law—regarding reproductive health decisions—has no impact on the federal 

budget. Therefore, CBO estimates that enactment of H.J. Res. 43 

would result in no cost to the federal government. Because enacting 

the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.J. Res. 43 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on the District of Columbia by disapproving and preempting a local law that 

prohibits employers from discriminating based on reproductive 

health decisions. Although the bill would limit the application of a 

local law, it would impose no duty that would result in additional 

spending or loss of revenues. The bill contains no private-sector 

mandate as defined in UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford 

(for federal costs) and Jon Sperl (for state and local impact). This 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(8) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

We strongly oppose H.J. Res. 43. The bill would sanction employment discrimination in the District of Columbia under the guise of 

religious liberty. The bill would permit employers to make employment decisions based on the private, constitutionally protected reproductive health decisions of employees, their spouses, and their 

dependents. The bill is also undemocratic. It would overturn the 

will of the 650,000 District residents as expressed in legislation 

passed by their elected legislature and signed by their elected 

mayor. 

D.C. passed the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination 

Amendment Act of 2014 (RHNDA) after learning that employers 

were making employment decisions based on reproductive health 

decisions. RHNDA ensures that employment decisions are based on 

merit, not reproductive health decisions. For example, RHNDA prohibits an employer from firing a woman because she had an abortion after being raped, demoting a man because his wife used birth 

control, paying an employee less because his or her teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, or firing an employee for using 

fertility treatments. 

RHNDA complies with the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a neutral law of general applicability that is 

rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. RHNDA 

applies to all employers (with some exceptions for religious organizations), does not target religion, and furthers the governmental interest of equal employment. 

RHNDA also complies with the Religious Freedom Restoration 

Act because it furthers a compelling governmental interest in the 

least restrictive means possible. Courts have held that non-discrimination laws can be the least restrictive means to further a 

compelling governmental interest. 

Religious liberty is protected under RHNDA by several exceptions to discrimination laws. The ministerial exception of the First 

Amendment permits religious employers to make employment decisions about ministers and ministerial employees without regard to 

employment discrimination laws. D.C.’s employment discrimination 

law, the Human Rights Act of 1977, permits a religious or political 

organization to make employment decisions based on religion and 

political persuasion ‘‘as is calculated by the organization to promote 

the religious or political principles for which it is established or 

maintained.’’ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also permits 

religious organizations to make employment decisions based on religion. 

The majority asserts that RHNDA requires employers to provide 

insurance coverage of reproductive health decisions, including contraception and abortion. Neither the text nor the legislative history 

of RHNDA supports that position. RHNDA does not mandate that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

employers provide any type of insurance. RHNDA requires that 

employers treat employees making reproductive health decisions in 

the same manner as other employees for employment-related purposes. The legislative history on RHNDA is clear on whether insurance coverage is required. According to the D.C. Council committee 

report, RHNDA ‘‘is not about insurance coverage.’’ 

Nevertheless, in order to eliminate any doubt that RHNDA could 

be construed to require insurance coverage, the D.C. Council and 

Mayor passed interim versions of RHNDA that expressly state that 

it ‘‘shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to a reproductive health decision.’’ The Council and Mayor have committed to passing a new permanent version 

of RHNDA that says the same thing. However, under the time-consuming and complicated legislative procedures that Congress imposed on the District in the Home Rule Act of 1973, D.C. cannot 

quickly pass permanent legislation. Instead, it had to pass an 

emergency version of RHNDA, which lasts for up to 90 days, and 

a temporary version, which lasts for up to 225 days, each of which 

expressly state that insurance coverage of a reproductive health decision is not required. The Mayor and Council have committed to 

passing a permanent version as soon as possible. 

Congress passed the Home Rule Act to give the D.C. government 

the same legislative authority as any city or state over non-federal 

matters (except for a small number of enumerated exceptions), and 

to ‘‘relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially 

local District matters.’’ Employment and reproductive law matters 

are unquestionably within the District’s legislative authority. 

H.J. Res. 43 would authorize employment discrimination based 

on conduct unrelated to employees’ ability to fulfill their job responsibilities, and, contrary to the majority’s professed support for federalism and limited government, uses federal power to overturn a 

local law. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING