Nita Lowey: “although the sponsor of this amendment would have us believe that this amendment is not as egregious as its earlier…”

“although the sponsor of this amendment would have us believe that this amendment is not as egregious as its earlier incarnation, the fundamental fact remains: its purpose is to nullify a duly adopted local ordinance, micro-manage a city, and punish those who don't share a narrow-minded vision of America. I have to ask why, in the Congress where Members on both sides of the aisle routinely preach the virtues of states' rights, local governance, and devolution of federal power, we're even considering such a thing. This amendment is really the height of hypocrisy. If the people of San Francisco--or any city for that matter--have chosen to use their municipal spending powers to prohibit discrimination in city contracts and help equalize health benefits for married heterosexual couples and unmarried same-sex couples, what business do we have in stepping in and overruling that action? As the U.S. Conference of Mayors has stated, passage of this amendment ``would establish a very dangerous precedent.'' It could harm more than 30,000 people who benefit from federal funding for low-income elderly housing, homeless programs, and housing for people with AIDS. It also would serve to blackmail other municipalities who--through the democratic process--want to adopt similar ordinances that prohibit discrimination in city contracts. Call me cynical, but I don't believe the sponsors have had a change in heart on the issue of local control.…”