Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the bill (H.R. 1065) to eliminate discrimination and promote women's health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act introduced by Representatives Nadler and Katko.

It is unacceptable that, in 2021, pregnant workers can still be denied basic workplace accommodations that help them stay healthy during their pregnancy. These accommodations, from

providing seating and water to excusing pregnant workers from heavy lifting, are not complex or costly.

But without these protections, too many workers are forced to either leave their jobs or put their health and the health of their pregnancy at risk. We can and must do better to ensure that no worker in this country is forced to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would finally establish a right to reasonable accommodations to all pregnant workers, and it would guarantee that pregnant workers can seek those accommodations without facing discrimination or retaliation.

Last Congress, 226 House Democrats and 103 Republicans came together to pass this legislation by a margin of 329-73. I hope we can come together again this year and finally deliver this bipartisan priority to our Nation's workers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, March 24, 2021.

Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Scott: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. There are certain

provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration, the Committee on House

Administration agrees to forego action on the bill. This is

done with the understanding that the Committee on House

Administration's jurisdictional interests over this and

similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In

addition, the Committee reserves its right to seek conferees

on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are

considered in a House-Senate conference and requests your

support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 1065 and ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your

committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record

during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to briefly respond to the fact that, first of all, this only applies to those employers with 15 workers or more. Furthermore, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment still apply. It is hard to imagine any religious objection to giving a pregnant worker water or an extra bathroom break, and there haven't been any complaints to the EEOC about the failure to do that.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from dozens of religious organizations, including the Catholic Labor Network, Jewish Women International, National Council of Churches, Union for Reform Judaism, and United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries in support of the legislation as it is.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned religious

and faith-based organizations representing a diversity of

faith traditions and communities across the nation, we write

today in support of healthy workplace environments and

conditions for pregnant workers. We urge you to pass the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065). People of faith

across the ideological spectrum understand that prioritizing

the health and safety of pregnant workers should not be a

partisan issue. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would

ensure that pregnant workers can continue safely working to

support their families during a pregnancy. The bill requires

employers to make the same sort of accommodations for

pregnant workers as are already in place for workers with

disabilities.

Our faith traditions affirm the dignity of pregnant

individuals and the moral imperative of ensuring their

safety. We also affirm the dignity of work and the obligation

to treat workers justly. It is immoral for an employer to

force a worker to choose between a healthy pregnancy and

earning a living. By passing the bipartisan Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act (H.R. 1065), Congress will ensure that workers

who are pregnant will be treated fairly in the workforce and

can continue earning income to support themselves and their

families. Efforts to distract from the central goal of

ensuring pregnant workers can maintain their health and the

health of their pregnancies by inserting unnecessary,

harmful, and politically divisive language into this bill

undermines our obligation to protect pregnant workers across

our country.

While many pregnant individuals continue working throughout

their pregnancies without incident, there are instances when

minor accommodations are necessary at the workplace to ensure

the safety of the expecting mother and the baby. All too

often, requests for simple workplace accommodations like a

stool to sit, a water bottle, or a bathroom break are denied.

Within the COVID-19 context, such critical accommodations

might include proper protective equipment, telework, or

staggered work schedules that offer employees commute times

which avoid crowded public transportation and increased

exposure. Currently, pregnant workers may continue to work

without necessary accommodations because they fear losing

their jobs and need the income, thus endangering their health

or the health of their pregnancy. Without these protections,

it is not uncommon for pregnant workers to be let go or

forced out onto unpaid leave for requesting accommodations.

Many others must quit their job to avoid risking the health

of their pregnancy.

Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a moral and

economic imperative; two-thirds of women who had their first

child between 2006 and 2008, the last year for which data is

available, worked during pregnancy, and 88 percent of these

first-time mothers worked into their last trimester. Keeping

these women healthy and in the workforce is paramount to

family economic security. In 2020, 77.5 percent of mothers

with children under age 6 worked full time, and that number

goes up to 81.2 percent for employed mothers with children

ages 6 to 17. Millions of families rely on their earnings. In

2019, the last year for which data is available, 41 percent

of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their

families, while 24.8 percent of mothers were co-breadwinners.

Whole families suffer when pregnant workers are forced out of

a job.

The undersigned religious and faith-based groups are united

in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. We strongly

urge you to vote for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely, the undersigned:

Ameinu, Arizona Jews for Justice, Aytzim: Ecological

Judaism, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Catholic Labor Network,

Church World Service, Columban Center for Advocacy and

Outreach, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good

Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, Faith Action Network, Faith Action

Network--Washington State.

Franciscan Action Network, Friends Committee on National

Legislation, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action,

Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston, Jewish

Women International, Justice Revival, Keshet, Leadership

Conference of Women Religious, National Advocacy Center of

the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence.

National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish

Women, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Network of

Jewish Human Service Agencies, Pax Christi USA, T'ruah: The

Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Union for Reform Judaism,

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, Uri

L'Tzedek.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is based on the simple idea that no one in this country should have to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy.

This concept of fairness for pregnant workers is precisely why both Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the last Congress.

Let's be clear. Reasonable protections for workers are nothing new in our Nation's workplaces. Employers already have several decades of experience providing reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We have heard about the fact that it doesn't include a religious exemption. Well, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act still applies. The First Amendment still applies. But there is no reason to give a wholesale exemption to religious organizations, because what are you exempting them from? Providing water for pregnant workers, giving a bathroom break to a pregnant worker, is that what they need an exemption from?

We need to make sure that those accommodations are available to all pregnant women who are working and that organizations with at least 15 workers are guaranteeing protections for pregnant workers in Federal law.

By doing that, this bill will eliminate the confusing patchwork of State and local workplace standards that workers and employers are currently forced to navigate. This legislation has broad support across the political spectrum and our communities.

In a recent nationwide survey, 89 percent of voters say they support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Labor unions; civil rights groups, as we have heard; and the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, have all endorsed this proposal as it is. It is imperative that we finally guarantee pregnant workers access to reasonable workplace accommodations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 250 organizations in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

May 11, 2021.

Re Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Dear Member of Congress: As organizations committed to

promoting the health and economic security of our nation's

families, we urge you to support the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act, a crucial maternal and infant health

measure. This bipartisan legislation promotes healthy

pregnancies and economic security for pregnant workers and

their families and strengthens the economy.

In the last few decades, there has been a dramatic

demographic shift in the workforce. Not only do women now

make up almost half of the workforce, but there are more

pregnant workers than ever before and they are working later

into their pregnancies. The simple reality is that some

pregnant workers--especially those in physically demanding

jobs--will have a medical need for a temporary job-related

accommodation in order to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Yet,

too often, instead of providing pregnant workers with an

accommodation, employers will fire or push them onto unpaid

leave, depriving them of a paycheck and health insurance at a

time when it may be most needed.

Additionally, discrimination affects pregnant workers

across race and ethnicity, but women of color and immigrants

may be at particular risk. Latinas, Black women and immigrant

women are more likely to hold certain inflexible and

physically demanding jobs that can present specific

challenges for pregnant workers, such as cashiers, home

health aides, food service workers, and cleaners, making

reasonable accommodations on the job even more important, and

loss of wages and health insurance due to pregnancy

discrimination especially challenging. American families and

the American economy depend on women's income: we cannot

afford to force pregnant workers out of work.

In 2015, in Young v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme

Court held that a failure to make accommodations for pregnant

workers with medical needs will sometimes violate the

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). Yet, even after

Young, pregnant workers are still not getting the

accommodations they need to stay safe and healthy on the job

and employers lack clarity as to their obligations under the

law. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will provide a clear,

predictable rule: employers must provide reasonable

accommodations for limitations arising out of pregnancy,

childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless this would

pose an undue hardship.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is modeled after the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers employers

and employees a familiar reasonable accommodation framework

to follow. Under the ADA, workers with disabilities enjoy

clear statutory protections and need not prove how other

employees are treated in order to obtain necessary

accommodations. Pregnant workers deserve the same clarity and

streamlined process and should not have to ascertain how

their employer treats others in order to understand their own

accommodation rights, as the Supreme Court's ruling currently

requires.

Evidence from states and cities that have adopted laws

similar to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act suggests that

providing this clarity reduces lawsuits and, most

importantly, helps ensure that workers can obtain necessary

reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, which keeps

pregnant workers healthy and earning an income when they need

it most. Workers should not have to choose between providing

for their family and maintaining a healthy pregnancy, and the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that all those

working for covered employers would be protected.

The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is

recognized across ideological and partisan lines. Thirty

states and D.C. have adopted pregnant worker fairness

measures with broad, and often unanimous, bipartisan support.

Twenty-five of those laws have passed within the last seven

years. These states include: Alaska, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New

Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Vermont, Virginia, and

Washington. Lawmakers have concluded that accommodating

pregnant workers who need it is a measured approach grounded

in family values and basic fairness.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary because it

promotes long-term economic security and workplace fairness.

When accommodations allow pregnant workers to continue to

work, they can maintain income and seniority, while forced

leave sets new parents back with lost wages and missed

advancement opportunities. When pregnant workers are fired,

not only do they and their families lose critical income, but

they must fight extra hard to re-enter a job market that is

especially brutal on those who are pregnant and unemployed.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is vital because it

supports healthy pregnancies. The choice between risking a

job and risking the health of a pregnancy is one no one

should have to make. Pregnant workers who cannot perform some

aspects of their usual duties without risking their own

health or the health of their pregnancy, but whose families

cannot afford to lose their income, may continue working

under dangerous conditions. There are health consequences to

pushing pregnant workers out of the workforce as well. Stress

from job loss can increase the risk of having a premature

baby and/or a baby with low birth weight. In addition, if

workers are not forced to use their leave during pregnancy,

they may have more leave available to take following

childbirth, which in turn facilitates lactation, bonding with

and caring for a new child, and recovering from childbirth.

For all of these reasons, we urge you to support the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

We also welcome the opportunity to provide you with

additional information.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance, American Civil Liberties Union, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law

Center, 1,000 Days, 2020 Mom, 9to5, ACTION OHIO Coalition For

Battered Women, Advocates for Youth, AFL-CIO, African

American Ministers In Action, Alaska Breastfeeding Coalition,

Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, All-Options, Academy of

Nutrition and Dietetics, American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Association of University, Women (AAUW), American

Association of University, Women (AAUW) Indianapolis,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health

Association, AnitaB.org, Asian Pacific American Labor

Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Farmworker Opportunity

Programs, Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs,

Association of State Public Health Nutritionists, Autistic

Self Advocacy Network, Baby Cafe USA, Beaufort-Jasper-Hampton

Comprehensive Health Services, Black Mamas Matter Alliance,

Black Women's Roundtable, Bazelon Center for Mental Health

Law, Bloom, Baby! Birthing Services, Bread For the World.

Breastfeeding Coalition of Delaware, Breastfeeding Family

Friendly Communities, Breastfeeding Hawaii, BreastfeedLA,

Building Pathways, Inc, California Breastfeeding Coalition,

California WIC Association, California Work & Family

Coalition, California Women's Law Center, Casa de Esperanza:

National Latina@ Network for Healthy Families and

Communities, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and

Social Policy (CLASP), Center for LGBTQ Economic, Advancement

& Research, Center for Parental Leave Leadership, Center for

Public Justice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Chosen

Vessels Midwifery Services, Church World Service,

Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, CLUW.

Coalition for Restaurant Safety & Health, Coalition of

Labor Union Women (CLUW), Coalition on Human Needs,

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd,

U.S. Provinces, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund

(CWEALF), DC Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, Disability Rights

Education & Defense Fund, Disciples Center for Public

Witness, Economic Policy Institute, Equality Ohio, Equal Pay

Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Every Texan, Every Mother,

Inc., Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Farmworker

Justice, Feminist Majority Foundation, First Focus Campaign

for Children.

Futures Without Violence, Gender Equality Law Center,

Gender Justice, Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights (GRR!),

Hadassah, The Women's Zionist, Organization of America, Inc.,

Hawai`i Children's Action Network Speaks!, Health Care For

America Now, Healthier Moms and Babies, Healthy Children

Project, Inc., Healthy and Free Tennessee, Healthy Mothers,

Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia, HealthyWomen, Hispanic

Federation, Hoosier Action, Human Rights Watch, ICNA CSJ, In

Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice

Agenda, Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, Indiana Institute for Working Families.

Indianapolis Urban League, Institute for Women's Policy

Research, Interfaith Workers Justice, Justice for Migrant

Women, Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Breastfeeding

Coalition, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, La

Leche League Alliance, La Leche League USA, LatinoJustice

PRLDEF, LCLAA, Legal Aid at Work, Legal Momentum, The Women's

Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Voice, Mabel

Wadsworth Center, Main Street Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby,

Make It Work Nevada, Mana, A National Latina Organization.

March of Dimes, Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance,

MCCOY (Marion County Commission on Youth), Methodist

Federation for Social Action, Michigan Breastfeeding Network,

Michigan League for Public Policy, Midwives Alliance of

Hawaii, Minus 9 to 5, Mississippi Black Women's Roundtable,

Mom Congress, MomsRising, Monroe County NOW, Mother Hubbard's

Cupboard, Mothering Justice, Mother's Own Milk Matters, MS

Black Women's Roundtable & MS, Women's Economic Security

Initiative, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National

Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF).

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners,

National Association of Social Workers, National Association

of Social Workers NH Chapter, National Advocates for Pregnant

Women, National Birth Equity Collaborative, National Center

for Law and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian

Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and

Community Empowerment (National PLACE), National Coalition

for the Homeless, National Coalition of 100 Black Women,

Inc., Central Ohio Chapter, National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence, National Consumers League, National

Council for Occupational Safety and Health (National COSH).

National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of

Jewish Women Cleveland, National Council of Jewish Women

(NCJW), Atlanta Section, National Domestic Workers Alliance,

National Education Association, National Employment Law

Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National

Health Law Program, National Hispanic Council on Aging,

National Network to End Domestic Violence, National

Organization for Women, National Urban League, National WIC

Association, National Women's Health Network, NETWORK Lobby

for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Breastfeeding

Coalition, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care

Coalition.

New Mexico Breastfeeding Task Force, New Working Majority,

North Carolina Justice Center, Northwest Arkansas

Breastfeeding Coalition, Nurse-Family Partnership, Nutrition

First, Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Ohio Coalition

for Labor Union Women, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Ohio

Federation of Teachers, Ohio Religious Coalition for

Reproductive Choice, Ohio Women's Alliance, Oxfam America,

Paid Leave For All, Partnership for America's Children,

Peirce Consulting LLC, Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union,

Women Philly CLUW, Philadelphia NOW Education Fund,

Philaposh, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned

Parenthood Federation of America.

PL+US: Paid Leave for the United States, Poder Latinx,

Pontikes Law LLC, PowHer New York, Pray First Mission

Ministries, Pretty Mama Breastfeeding, LLC, Prevent Child

Abuse NC, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), Restaurant

Opportunities Center United, RESULTS, RESULTS DC/MD, Shriver

Center on Poverty Law, SisterReach, SPAN Parent Advocacy

Network (SPAN), Solutions for Breastfeeding, Speaking of

Birth, Southwest Women's Law Center, The International Union,

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America (UAW), The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights,

The Little Timmy Project, The National Domestic Violence

Hotline, The Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, The Women

and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, The Women's

Law Center of Maryland, The Zonta Club of Greater Queens,

TIME'S UP Now, U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, Ujima Inc: The

National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community, UltraViolet, Union for Reform Judaism, United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United

Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), United

Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW),

United Spinal Association, United State of Women, United

Steelworkers, United Today, Stronger Tomorrow.

Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio, VA NOW, Inc.,

Virginia Breastfeeding Advisory Committee, Virginia

Breastfeeding Coalition, Voices for Progress, Wabanaki

Women's Coalition, We All Rise, West Virginia Breastfeeding

Alliance, Western Kansas Birthkeeping, William E. Morris

Institute for Justice (Arizona), Women and Girls Foundation

of Southwest Pennsylvania, Women Employed, Women of Reform

Judaism, Women's Fund of Greater Chattanooga.

Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, Women's

March, Women's Media Center, Women's Rights and Empowerment

Network, Women4Change, Workplace Fairness, Workplace Justice

Project at Loyola Law Clinic, Worksafe, WV Breastfeeding

Alliance, WV Perinatal Partnership, Inc., YWCA Dayton, YWCA

Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Mahoning Valley, YWCA McLean County,

YWCA Northwestern Illinois, YWCA USA, YWCA of the University

of Illinois, ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I thank Chairman Nadler and Congressman Katko for their leadership on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have one last speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and reported a rule, House Resolution 380, providing for consideration of H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Waters, makes in order 14 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman Waters or her designee and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, under a closed rule, which provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee

on Education and Labor or their designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule deems as passed H. Res. 379, a resolution to dismiss the election contest in Illinois' 14th Congressional District.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 11 or May 12. This authority lasts through May 14.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide consideration of two important bills to protect and support our constituents. First is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, which will create protections for servicemembers, small businesses, students, and other consumers against mistreatment by debt collectors. Debt collection is consistently one of the top complaints made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the pandemic has further exposed weaknesses in current consumer protection laws.

In March, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, which I chair, held a hearing on protecting consumers during the pandemic. We heard expert witnesses discuss how many debt collectors have seen record profits in the pandemic, despite many families and individuals continuing to struggle.

H.R. 2547 is comprehensive legislation to update consumer protections in debt collection across many different issues. For example, the bill codifies and expands protections for small and minority-owned businesses and prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in rank or other military disciplinary actions. Additionally, it protects private student loan borrowers with disabilities, would prohibit entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a credit reporting agency without giving the consumer notice about his or her rights, and clarifies that entities in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This legislation is sponsored by Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters and incorporates bills from committee members, Representatives Nydia Velazquez, Madeleine Dean, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Emanuel Cleaver, Greg Meeks, and Jake Auchincloss. The bill is supported by many consumer and civil rights organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Color of Change, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and others.

This legislation will update and improve debt collection consumer protection laws, and make sure that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly as we all work to come out of this pandemic stronger.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Claims of pregnancy discrimination have been on the rise for two decades and affect all industries and regions across the country. This bipartisan bill will strengthen workplace protections and promote the well-being of pregnant workers by creating a new right to pregnancy accommodation in the workplace.

Temporary modifications at work, like regular breaks, a stool to sit on, or an exemption from heavy lifting, can be the difference between a healthy pregnancy and pregnancy complications. When pregnant workers are denied reasonable workplace accommodations, they are often left to choose between their financial stability and a healthy pregnancy.

Currently, only 30 States require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, including, thankfully, my home State of Colorado. But this has created a confusing patchwork of local, State, and Federal laws, leaving many pregnant workers with few protections.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act enjoys support from both worker advocates and business groups because it is good for families, it is good for business, and it is good for the economy. The House passed this bill last Congress in a broad, bipartisan vote of 329-73, and I hope more of my colleagues join us in passing the bill this year.

I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record a letter dated May 10, 2021, from about 85 different public interest and financial organizations supporting H.R. 2547.

May 10, 2021.

Re H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement

Act'' (Waters), which includes:

HR 2540, the ``Small Business Fairness Lending Act''

(Velazquez).

HR 1491, the ``Fair Debt Collection Practices for

Servicemembers Act'' (Dean).

HR 2498, the ``Private Loan Disability Discharge Act''

(Dean).

HR 2537, the ``Consumer Protection for Medical Debt

Collections Act'' (Tlaib).

HR 1657, the ``Ending Debt Collection Harassment Act''

(Pressley).

HR 2572, the ``Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act'' (Cleaver).

HR 2628, the ``Debt Collection Practices Harmonization Act''

(Meeks).

HR 2458, the ``Non-Judicial Foreclosure Debt Collection

Clarification Act'' (Auchincloss).

Representative Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Representative Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Washington,

I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments, but, apparently, consumer protection is not high on the list of priorities for the other side of the aisle.

I would just say, this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2547, has many good aspects, a number of which are bipartisan in nature:

It codifies the protections that currently exist under the FTC regulation for consumer loans prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment that waive due process protections, and extends those protections to commercial loans to protect small and minority-owned businesses.

It prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in their rank and revoking their security clearance or prosecuting them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires a GAO study on the impact of debt collection on servicemembers.

It requires discharge of private student loans for both the borrower and cosigner in the case of permanent disability of the borrower, extending protections that currently exist for Federal student loans. So it assists people with serious disabilities.

It requires private lenders who are notified the Federal Government has discharged the Federal student loans of a borrower to discharge the private student loans of that same borrower.

It bars entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a consumer reporting agency without giving the consumer a notice about their rights.

These are so simple, and you would expect that there would be universal acceptance of this, but apparently not.

It provides a minimum 1-year delay from adverse information reported and a 2-year delay before collection attempts are made on these medical bills.

We heard last night in committee even Dr. Burgess talking about the normal practices of medical professionals allowing people to have time to pay their bills, especially when we are in the middle of a pandemic or as we are coming out of a pandemic.

It bans the reporting of medical debts arising from medically necessary procedures. This was something that Ralph Hall, a Republican, championed for years.

It prohibits a debt collector from contacting a consumer by email or text message without a consumer's consent to be contacted electronically.

It requires the CFPB to analyze and annually report on the impact of electronic communications utilized by debt collectors.

The provisions of this bill are simple, consumer-oriented efforts to provide information to the consumer debtor and to take into consideration that we are in a pandemic and medical bills have piled up for so many people.

This is a very simple bill. It has bipartisan provisions in it. It should be passed, as should the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as to H.R. 1065, there are at least 20, if not more, Republican cosponsors of that piece of legislation. I want the Record to reflect that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that we passed a bill about 2 months ago called the American Rescue Plan. Not one Republican voted for that. That had money to support law enforcement and local governments and cities and States that saw their tax revenues fall off a cliff.

Mr. Speaker, when my friend, Mr. Reschenthaler, says, oh, a billion dollars was cut from the funding here, or $150 million cut from there, he forgot to talk about the fact that tax revenues across the country for local governments and State governments were cut to the bone because of the pandemic.

If my friends really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, then they would have supported the American Rescue Plan because it provided $350 billion to State and local governments so that they could increase funding to the police, to law enforcement, to social services, to a whole variety of agencies and needs. But, apparently, they chose not to. Instead, they choose to bring claims that Democrats want to defund the police, which couldn't be further from the truth.

We put our money where our mouths are, and we said we support law enforcement. We support local government employees. We support State government employees. We provided in the American Rescue Plan, which not a single Republican voted for, hazard pay because it has been so difficult for law enforcement and for so many others to conduct their services, to be out in the community during this particular pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I just would suggest to my friends, next time they get an opportunity to actually provide funding to law enforcement, they vote for it and not just say they are supportive of it. Let's put their moneys where their mouths are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two Statements of Administration Policy. One on H.R. 2547, and the other one on H.R. 1065, both in support of the bills that are under consideration.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2547--Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act--Rep. Waters,

D-CA, and seven cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2547, the

Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. This

legislation would expand necessary safeguards to ensure

working families and small businesses are protected from

predatory debt collection practices.

As our Nation works to recover from the worst economic and

public health crises of our lifetimes, many families and

small businesses are dealing with outstanding debts. In

addition to providing robust relief, the government must also

protect Americans from abusive and predatory practices.

H.R. 2547 would extend existing consumer protections

against predatory lending arrangements to small businesses,

prohibit debt collectors from threatening service members

with a reduction in rank, prosecution or loss of security

clearance, and restrict contact to consumers by email or text

messages. The legislation would require discharge of private

student loans for both the borrower and cosigners in the case

of permanent disability for the borrower, establishing

greater parity in protections for private and Federal student

loan borrowers. The bill also clarifies protections for

consumers in the case of non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings.

The Administration applauds these steps to strengthen

consumer protections for hardworking Americans and their

families, and we look forward to working with the Congress

further on the details of this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1065--Pregnant Workers Fairness Act--Rep. Nadler, D-NY, and 228

cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Pregnant workers are

too often unable to access simple changes to their working

conditions that would allow them to keep doing their jobs and

do so safely. This can create risks to their health as well

as economic consequences. No worker should be forced to

choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide basic, long

overdue protections to ensure that pregnant workers and job

applicants are not fired or otherwise discriminated against,

or denied reasonable accommodations that allow them to work.

Such protections promote family economic security by helping

women stay in the workforce, including for those, often women

of color, who are the sole or primary breadwinners in their

families. Approximately two million women have left the

workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding more than 30

years of progress in women's labor force participation, and

this Administration is committed to ensuring that women can

both care for and support themselves and their families.

H.R. 1065 is a bipartisan bill that requires certain

employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified

employees and job applicants with known limitations related

to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

These accommodations might include simple modifications, such

as modifying a no-food-or-drink policy, providing additional

break time to use the bathroom, or helping avoid the lifting

of heavy objects, depending on the circumstances. The bill

would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations

for qualified pregnant workers unless doing so would pose an

undue hardship to the employer. It would also provide for an

interactive process, where necessary, between employers and

pregnant workers to determine appropriate and effective

reasonable accommodations, and would protect pregnant workers

from being denied employment opportunities, or from

retaliation or interference, because they request or use an

accommodation.

The Administration encourages the House to pass this

bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to

working with the Congress to protect pregnant workers across

the country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to find a subject to talk about, since apparently they don't really have too many objections to either of the bills that are being discussed in the rule today.

Obviously, it doesn't seem like there is much conversation about H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. And there isn't much discussion about the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. Because those things are commonsense. They should be passed by this House. We thank so many Republicans for being cosponsors of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, a number of the provisions in the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act are really bipartisan, including the one Mr. Hall used to champion when he was a Member here in the Congress.

So you want to go off and talk about something else. I wonder where the outrage for brutality against our police was when a rightwing mob stormed this Capitol. And the only one of the people that really is speaking of the truth today in the Republican Caucus--Ms. Cheney from Wyoming--was ousted from her leadership position because she talked about the truth and the fact there was a mob, and our police were beaten by a rightwing mob.

Mr. Speaker, so I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Take a look in the mirror, and let's support our police across the board. Because I certainly support the law enforcement in Colorado. I support our Capitol Police, our FBI--particularly, the FBI.

President Trump would always undercut the FBI.

So I would suggest to my friends: Take a look in the mirror. Let's all support our law enforcement because they are important members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Nebraska for condemning-- finally, somebody condemning the riot and the attack that occurred against all of us and against our police, the Capitol Police, on January 6. I would also like to see more members of the Republican Party stand up and do exactly that same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to see them do what Ms. Cheney did, and condemn the ex-President, Donald Trump, for his role in inciting that whole mob action on January 6, and then we could start getting things back together.

Instead, my friend from Pennsylvania, reading a resolution that condemns racist policing that may have existed for a very long time, and I can't believe that he supports policing that is delivered in some kind of racist fashion. We have had too many people killed across this country. I know that is not what he meant.

So I just would urge us to focus on the bills that are at hand, which is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, because those are important pieces of legislation that should be considered immediately by this House. And when we pass this rule, they will be considered.

So I oppose the gentleman's suggestions that we move to a different previous question. I appreciate Mr. Bacon's comments about his bill. There are provisions in there that are really outstanding, but we are here to deal with debt collections and we are here to deal with pregnant workers' fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, during this week, applaud our law enforcement and our first responders, but particularly law enforcement right now for their valor, for their protection of our communities. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing up that subject at this time.

But we are here on a rule dealing with the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The treatment of consumers in the collection of debts and businesses and military personnel is a very important subject, especially during this time of COVID when so many families are struggling.

We have thousands and thousands of people who were laid off. In fact, where millions of people are still out of work a year and a half after COVID started. And, as a consequence, a lot of folks need assistance and need help, and they don't need to be hounded in improper ways as they go through this struggle.

So the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is very important for the financial health of our consumers and people across the country. The provisions in the bill are bipartisan ideas to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices. They also ensure pregnant women can receive reasonable workplace accommodations to ensure that they can stay in the workforce.

According to the CFPB 2021 Annual Report, more than one in four Americans have a third-party debt collection item attached to their credit report. And, last year, the CFPB received 82,700 consumer complaints about debt collection. It is time for Congress to act.

And based on the gentleman from Pennsylvania's argument, which has nothing to do with that particular bill or the facts as we have seen them develop during this pandemic, that should be an easy vote for everybody, whether they are Democrat or Republican.

The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act provides important consumer protections to stop abusive debt collection practices, and it ensures that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary to support the more than 80 percent of women who will give birth to a child at some point during their working years. These women deserve to have reasonable accommodations, which oftentimes cost businesses little to no money to implement. So we can help pregnant women stay in the workforce. This bill passed on broad bipartisan vote last Congress, and I hope it passes with even more support again this week.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 380

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3079) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 9. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3079, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3080) to protect law enforcement officers, and for

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Sec 10. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3080, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

further protect officers and employees of the United States,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3079, H.R. 3080, and H.R. 2137.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Katko for cosponsoring this bill.

For as long as women have been in the workforce, they have faced discrimination because of their sex, which is only amplified when a woman is pregnant. Pregnant workers are often passed over for promotions, forced out on leave, whether paid or unpaid, and sometimes even fired. As we have seen time and again, these policies disproportionately impact women of color and low-wage hourly workers.

We all agree that pregnancy is not a disability, but sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an extra bathroom break, to stay on the job. These accommodations are short in duration, and typically cost very little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping your job or putting your pregnancy at risk.

Given the low cost of these accommodations, we must ask why so many employers are unwilling to provide them and keep their pregnant workers employed. The answer, unfortunately, is that for many employers, a pregnant employee embodies negative gender stereotypes regarding motherhood and pregnancy. Society still expects women to conform to stereotypical notions that to be a good parent, you must choose between pregnancy and work.

This harmful stereotype puts working women in an impossible position of having to choose between their family's health and their financial well-being. While pregnancy may create some known physical limitations, this choice between work and pregnancy is a fallacy and can be remedied with a reasonable accommodation. Despite repeated attempts by Congress over the years to address this persistent gender discrimination, many employers still view pregnancy and work as incompatible.

Current law continues to allow employers to simply force most pregnant workers out on leave rather than even considering providing an accommodation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does require employers to accommodate a pregnant worker if her work limitations rise to the disability impacting one or more major life functions. Women who have limitations that do not rise to this level are not protected under the ADA, which was not designed to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination.

Furthermore, the courts have hamstrung other attempts by Congress to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Courts have interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to only require employers to provide an accommodation if they also accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work and employed in similar working conditions.

In order to prove discrimination, pregnant women must have perfect and complete employment and medical histories for every other employee in their workplace. It is obviously nearly impossible for employees to have that information, as evidenced by the fact that in over two-thirds of cases, courts have sided with employers who denied a pregnant worker accommodation.

Current law lets women fall through the cracks in every sector of our economy, including the public sector. Take, for example, the story of Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee with the Alabama Department of Corrections. From the moment Ms. Williams told her employer she was pregnant, they started a campaign to fire her.

When she presented a note from her doctor requesting to be excused from a monthly physical training session during her pregnancy, the State fired her. Her employer actually wrote an email stating that her doctor's note gave them grounds to dismiss Ms. Williams.

Even with that email in her possession, Ms. Williams is still litigating her case 5 years later. No one should have to go to Federal court to get a simple accommodation to safely stay on the job while pregnant.

The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act before us today will close this gap in the law and create an affirmative right to accommodation for all pregnant workers. Using the familiar language of the ADA as a framework, the bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Courts know exactly how to interpret that language.

Employers know exactly what their responsibilities will be. But most importantly, women will have the certainty they can safely stay on the job.

That is why 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodation laws similar to the PWFA and over 200 business, civil rights, health, and labor organizations support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from two of those organizations, A Better Balance and the National Women's Law Center.

May 11, 2021.

Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065).

Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write

to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 1065). This legislation will

ensure pregnant workers, particularly low-income workers and

women of color, are not forced to choose between their

paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. The bill will require

employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant

workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the

employer, similar to the accommodation standard already in

place for workers with disabilities.

Forty-two years after the passage of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act, pregnant workers still face rampant

discrimination on the job and treatment as second-class

citizens, as I explained in detail in my Congressional

testimony before the House Education & Labor Committee in

March 2021 and October 2019, as well as in A Better Balance's

May 2019 report, Long Overdue. We urge you to support healthy

pregnancies, protect pregnant workers' livelihoods, and end

the systemic devaluation of women of color and vote YES on

the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal

organization that advances justice for workers so they can

care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing

their economic security. Since our founding, we have seen day

in and day out the injustices that pregnant workers continue

to face because they need modest, temporary pregnancy

accommodations and have led the movement at the federal,

state, and local level to ensure pregnant workers can receive

the accommodations they need to remain healthy and working.

As I wrote in my 2012 Op-Ed in The New York Times ``Pregnant

and Pushed Out of Job,'' which sparked the PWFA's

introduction in Congress, ``[Gaps in our civil rights laws

leave this enormous class without the right to the modest

accommodations that would protect them.'' As a result, ``for

many women, a choice between working under unhealthy

conditions and not working is no choice at all.''

We founded A Better Balance 15 years ago because we

recognized that a lack of fair and supportive work-family

laws and policies--the ``care crisis''--was

disproportionately harming women, especially Black and Latina

mothers, in low-wage jobs. As I recently shared before

Congress, ``This bias and inflexibility often kicks in when

women become pregnant and then snowballs into lasting

economic disadvantage. We call this the `pregnancy penalty'--

and since day one, A Better Balance has recognized it as a

key barrier to gender equality in America.''

Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken

with thousands of pregnant workers, disproportionately women

of color, who have been fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations, often stripping them of their

health insurance when they need it most, driving them into

poverty, and at times, even homelessness. Other women we have

assisted were denied accommodations but needed to keep

working to support themselves and their families and faced

devastating health consequences, including miscarriage,

preterm birth, birth complications, and other maternal health

effects.

In the past year alone, we have heard from women across the

country who continue to face termination or are forced out

for needing pregnancy accommodations, in situations often

exacerbated by the pandemic and economic crisis. Tesia, a

retail store employee from Missouri called us in 2020 after

she was forced to quit her job because her employer refused

to let her carry a water bottle on the retail floor even

though she was experiencing severe dehydration due to hot

temperatures in the store this summer. A massage therapist

from Pennsylvania called us in June 2020 requesting to return

to work on a part-time basis on the advice of her OB-GYN

after experiencing cramping in her uterus. Her employer

responded that they would not accommodate her and cut off all

communication with her after that, forcing her out of work

just three months before she was due to give birth. A nurse

we spoke with from Pennsylvania who was six months pregnant

requested to avoid assignment to the COVID-19 unit. Though

her hospital was not overwhelmed by the pandemic at that

time, had many empty beds, and other workers were being sent

home, her employer refused her request and made heartless

comments mocking her need for accommodation. She decided not

to jeopardize her health and lost pay for missing those

shifts as a result. She also worried about being called to

the COVID unit shift constantly. Without the law on their

side, these women had little legal recourse because they

lived in a state without a state-level pregnant workers

fairness law.

Although the pandemic has shined a spotlight on these

issues, the stories we heard in 2020 are in many ways similar

to those we've been hearing for over a decade. ln 2012,

Armanda Legros was forced out of her job at an armored truck

company because her employer would not accommodate her

lifting restriction. Without an income, she struggled to feed

her newborn and young child. As she told the Senate Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions committee in a hearing in

2014, ``Once my baby arrived just putting food on the table

for him and my four-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to

use water in his cereal at times because I could not afford

milk.'' The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in

place beyond the pandemic, until the law is passed.

Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act is the Solution

Gaps in federal law, namely the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (PDA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), mean

many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without

legal protection in states that do not have statewide PWFA

protections. As we explained in our report Long Overdue,

``[w]hile the PDA bans pregnancy discrimination, it requires

employers to make accommodations only if they accommodate

other workers, or if an employee unearths evidence of

discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires

employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers

with disabilities, which can include some pregnancy-related

disabilities. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability,

leaving a gap wherein many employers are in no way obligated

to accommodate pregnant workers in need of immediate relief

to stay healthy and on the job.''

Original analysis we conducted for Long Overdue found that

even though the 2015 Supreme Court Young v. UPS case set a

new legal standard for evaluating pregnancy accommodation

cases under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in two-thirds

of cases decided since Young, employers were permitted to

deny pregnant workers accommodations under the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act. As I shared in my recent testimony, women

are continuing to lose their cases because of this uniquely

burdensome standard.

That statistic, as devastating as it is, does not account

for the vast majority of pregnant workers who do not have the

resources to vindicate their rights in court. Beyond being

resource strapped, most pregnant workers we hear from do not

have the desire to engage in time-consuming and stressful

litigation. They want to be able to receive an accommodation

so they can continue working at the jobs they care about

while maintaining a healthy pregnancy.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is also inadequate for

pregnant workers for two reasons. First, because pregnancy is

not itself a disability under current disability law, a

pregnant worker who has no complications but seeks an

accommodation in order to avoid a complication, will not be

able to get an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Second, even though Congress expanded the

Americans with Disabilities Act in 2008, courts have

interpreted the ADA Amendments Act in a way that did

little to expand coverage even for those pregnant workers

with serious health complications. As one court concluded in

2018, ``Although the 2008 amendments broadened the ADA 's

definition of disability, these changes only have had a

modest impact when applied to pregnancy-related conditions.''

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security,

Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure

Pregnant workers who are fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations face significant economic

hardship. In addition to losing their livelihood, many of

these workers lose their health benefits at a time when they

need them most, forcing them to switch providers, delay

medical care, or face staggering health care costs associated

with pregnancy and childbirth. Many workers must use up saved

paid or unpaid leave they had hoped to reserve to recover

from childbirth. We worked with one woman who was eight

months pregnant and whose hours were cut after she needed an

accommodation which meant she also lost her health insurance.

As a result, she asked her doctor if they could induce her

labor early, despite the health risks in doing so, so that

she would not be left facing exorbitant medical bills. In the

long term, being pushed out for needing pregnancy

accommodations also exacerbates the gender wage gap, as it

means not only a loss of pay, but also losing out on many

types of benefits such as 401K and retirement contributions,

social security contributions, pensions, as well as

opportunities for promotion and growth.

To be clear, most pregnant workers may not need

accommodations. However, for those who do, reasonable

accommodations can avert significant health risks. For

instance, in a Health Impact Assessment of state level

pregnant workers fairness legislation, the Louisville,

Kentucky Department of Public Health and Wellness concluded,

``Accommodating pregnant workers, upon their request, is

critical for reducing poor health outcomes . . . Improving

birth outcomes makes a sustainable impact for a lifetime of

better health.'' The report noted that those poor health

outcomes can include miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth

weight, preeclampsia (a serious condition and leading cause

of maternal mortality), among other issues. According to the

March of Dimes, in the U.S., nearly 1 in 10 babies are born

pre-term and the preterm birth rate among Black women is

nearly fifty percent higher than it is for all other women.

Preterm birth/low birthweight is a leading cause of infant

mortality in America. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a

key measure to reduce poor maternal and infant health

outcomes.

Pregnancy accommodations are also a key solution, among

many, needed to address the Black maternal and infant health

crisis. Systemic racism has led to the shameful reality that

Black women in this country are three to four times likelier

to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and

Black babies are more than two times as likely to die in the

first year of life than white babies. At the same time, we

know Black women also face devastating health consequences

when they are unable to obtain needed pregnancy

accommodations to maintain their health and the health of

their pregnancies. When Tasha Mureil, a Black woman who

worked at a warehouse in Tennessee, received a doctor's note

saying she needed a lifting restriction and complained of

extreme stomach pain, she was forced to continue lifting on

the job. One day, she told a supervisor she was in pain and

asked to leave early. Her manager said no. Tragically, she

had a miscarriage the next day. Tasha was not alone. Three

more of her coworkers, also Black, miscarried after

supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy

lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based SisterReach,

explained ``It doesn't surprise me that this is the culture

of that workplace. I think it's important to look at the fact

that since we arrived here in chains, we [Black women] were

regarded as producers to fuel a labor force that couldn't

care less for us . . .'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

will ensure pregnant workers and their health are valued and

that Black mothers, especially, are not treated as expendable

on the job.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Bipartisan Bill That Has the

Support of This Country's Largest Business Groups

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is not a partisan bill.

Not only does it have strong bipartisan support in Congress,

but thirty states and five cities including Tennessee,

Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska,

and Utah already have laws requiring employers to provide

accommodations for pregnant employees. All of the laws passed

in recent years are highly similar to the federal

legislation, and all passed with bipartisan, and often

unanimous, support.'' Many, including Tennessee's and

Kentucky's, were championed by Republican legislators.

Pregnant workers are a vital part of our economy. Three-

quarters of women will be both pregnant and employed at some

point during their lives'' Ensuring pregnant workers can

remain healthy and attached to the workforce is an issue of

critical importance, especially as this country faces a

devastating economic crisis. That is why leading business

groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Society for Human

Resources Management, many major corporations, and local

chambers around the country including, Greater Louisville

Inc., one of Kentucky's leading chambers of commerce, support

this measure. The PWFA will provide much needed clarity in

the law which will lead to informal and upfront resolutions

between employers and employees and help prevent problems

before they start. Furthermore, accommodations are short term

and low cost. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help

employers retain valuable employees and reduce high turnover

and training costs. The reasonable accommodation framework is

also borrowed from the American with Disabilities Act

framework so employers are already familiar with the

standard. Furthermore, keeping pregnant workers employed

saves taxpayers money in the form of unemployment insurance

and other public benefits.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Uses a Familiar Framework That Provides Key Protections to Pregnant Workers and Clarity to Employers

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has several key

provisions that will address the inequality pregnant workers

continue to face at work. Employers, including private

employers with fifteen or more employees, will be required to

provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees

absent undue hardship on the employer. Both the term

``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' have the

same definition as outlined in the American with Disabilities

Act. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act,

employers and employees will engage in an interactive process

in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. In order

to prevent employers from pushing pregnant employees out on

leave when they need an accommodation, the bill specifies

that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take

leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.

The bill also includes clear anti-retaliation language such

that employers cannot punish pregnant workers for requesting

or using an accommodation. This is critical as many pregnant

workers often do not ask for accommodations because they are

afraid they will face repercussions for requesting or needing

an accommodation.

Critically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is also very

clear that a pregnant worker need not have a disability as

defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to

merit accommodations under the law. Rather, the bill

indicates that pregnant workers with ``known limitations

related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical

conditions'' are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

``Known limitations'' is defined as a ``physical or mental

condition related to, affected by, or arising out of

pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the

employee or employee's representative has communicated to the

employer whether or not such condition meets the definition

of disability'' as set forth in the Americans with

Disabilities Act. This addresses the two challenges with the

ADA outlined above.

Now, more than ever, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is

an urgent maternal health, racial justice, and economic

security measure to keep pregnant workers healthy and earning

a paycheck. We cannot delay justice and fairness for pregnant

workers any longer. For the sake of this country's pregnant

workers and our nation's families, we implore Congress to put

aside its many differences and pass this legislation with a

strong bipartisan vote. We ask every Member of Congress to

vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It is long

overdue.

Sincerely,

Dina Bakst,

Co-Founder & Co-President,

A Better Balance.

Mr. Speaker, that is why, last Congress, the House passed identical legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. But as the economy reopens, the problem persists. The House must act again to pass this bill, and the Senate must take it up.

Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his kindness.

This has to pass today if we have any sense of fairness not only to women, but to our children.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private-sector employers with more than 15 employees, and public-sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment.

The Supreme Court decision, just recently, in 2015, that allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims is not enough because pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations, because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination.

This is not discrimination. I have never seen a religious organization that wants to deny anyone any opportunity.

This is a fair assessment. I know it personally because I was denied a job because I was nursing. A job was taken away from me. When I was pregnant and was about to give birth, there was no definition of pregnancy leave for my position. At that time I was a lawyer, practicing law in a large firm, and it was, at best, two weeks and get back.

So I understand that this is essential for those workers in working conditions where they do not have the power to be protected, that they are doing heavy lifting, that they have physically demanding jobs, that they are the sole provider of their family.

This is important. Black and Latino women particularly suffer, minority women, particularly a burden.

Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities. We must have this bill.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the disabled community, mental health community, United Spinal Association, and others.

May 11, 2021.

Re Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: As co-chairs

of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights

Task Force, we write in strong support of the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065. CCD is the largest coalition

of national organizations working together to advocate for

federal public policy that ensures the self-determination,

independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of

children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of

society.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)'s mandate that

covered employers make reasonable accommodations to ensure

equal opportunity for applicants and employees with

disabilities has been tremendously important in helping

people with disabilities secure and maintain employment.

While the ADA does not cover pregnancy itself as a

disability, in light of the ADA Amendments Act, which lowered

the standard for demonstrating a disability from what the

courts had previously applied, many pregnant workers who

experience pregnancy-related complications should be covered

as people with disabilities and entitled to reasonable

accommodations under the ADA. Yet many courts have continued

to interpret the ADA's coverage narrowly, and in practice,

large numbers of pregnant workers are not offered reasonable

accommodations. Furthermore, a clear pregnancy accommodation

standard will help prevent pregnancy-related complications

before they arise. Such accommodations should be provided to

pregnant workers so that they can remain in the workforce and

not lose their employment simply because they experience

pregnancy-related limitations.

The accommodation requirement of H.R. 1065 is limited, as

is the ADA's accommodation requirement, to those

accommodations

that are reasonable and would not impose an undue hardship.

That standard takes into account the needs of employers while

also ensuring that pregnant workers can stay on the job with

reasonable accommodations. This protection is critical not

only for pregnant workers but for our national economy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is particularly important

to people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities

who did not require accommodations before becoming pregnant

experience new complications due to how pregnancy impacts

their disabilities, and need accommodations once they become

pregnant. These workers are sometimes told that they are not

entitled to accommodations because the employer views the

need for accommodation as related to pregnancy rather than to

the worker's underlying disability.

We thank the Committee for moving the bill forward and urge

all members of the House of Representatives to vote for the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and oppose any motion to

recommit.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mathis,

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

Stephen Lieberman,

United Spinal Association.

Allison Nichol,

Epilepsy Foundation.

Kelly Buckland,

National Council on Independent Living.

Samantha Crane,

Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Molly Burgdorf,

The Arc of the United States.

Co-chairs, CCD Rights Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter representing organizations from Black Mamas Matter Alliance, to March of Dimes, to 1,000 Days to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

May 11, 2021.

Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations

dedicated to assuring quality maternal, infant, and child

health and well-being, improving pregnancy and birth

outcomes, and closing racial disparities in maternal health

enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

(H.R. 1065). Modeled after the Americans with Disabilities

Act, the bill would require employers to provide reasonable,

temporary workplace accommodations to pregnant workers as

long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship

on the employer. This bill is critically important because no

one should have to choose between having a healthy pregnancy

and a paycheck.

Congress must do all it can to end the prejudice pregnant

workers, especially Black pregnant workers and workers of

color, continue to face in the workplace. This includes

making sure when pregnant workers voice a need for reasonable

accommodations that those needs are met rather than penalized

and that the workplace is an environment where pregnant

workers do not fear asking for the accommodations they need

to maintain their health.

Three-quarters of women will be pregnant and employed at

some point in their lives.) (Most pregnant workers can expect

a routine pregnancy and healthy birth. However, health care

professionals have consistently recommended that some

pregnant individuals make adjustments in their work

activities to sustain a healthy pregnancy and prevent adverse

pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth or miscarriage.

These medically necessary workplace accommodations can

include allowing additional bathroom breaks, opportunities to

stay hydrated, lifting restrictions, or access to a chair or

stool to decrease time spent standing.

Unfortunately, too many pregnant workers, particularly

pregnant people of color, face barriers to incorporating even

these small changes to their workdays. For example, Black

women experience maternal mortality rates three to four times

higher than white women, with Indigenous women similarly

experiencing disproportionately high rates. The circumstances

surrounding these alarming statistics can often be attributed

to a lack of access to care, including due to inflexible

workplaces, and deep biases in racial understanding. Various

social determinants such as health, education, and economic

status drastically influence the outcomes of pregnancy for

Black women leading to severe pregnancy-related

complications. As the Black Mamas Matter Alliance has pointed

out ``Health is determined in part by our access to social

and economic opportunities, the resources and supports that

are available in the places where we live, and the safety of

our workplaces . . . however, disparities in these conditions

of daily life give some people better opportunities to be

healthy than others.'' Black pregnant workers along with

Latinx and immigrant women are disproportionately likely to

work in physically demanding jobs that may lead to workers

needing modest accommodations to ensure a healthy pregnancy.

Too often, however, those requests are refused or ignored,

forcing pregnant workers of color to disproportionately

contend with unsafe working conditions.

Furthermore, Black mothers have among the highest labor

force participation rates in the country and 80 percent of

Black mothers are their family's primary breadwinner. Yet,

historically, Black women have been exploited in the

workplace, and that exploitation continues to this day.

Though Black women only comprise 14.3 percent of the

population, nearly thirty percent of pregnancy discrimination

complaints are filed by Black women. This is because of the

multiple forms of discrimination Black workers and other

workers of color too often face in the workplace. As scholar

Nina Banks has noted, ``The legacy of black women's

employment in industries that lack worker protections has

continued today since black women are concentrated in low-

paying, inflexible service occupations . . .'' Black women in

low wage jobs working during pregnancy face little support

from employers when safeguards do not address pregnancy

related accommodations. Faced with the threat of termination,

loss of health insurance, or other benefits, Black pregnant

people are often forced to keep working which can compromise

their health and the health of their pregnancy.

Workplace accommodations help safeguard a healthy pregnancy

or prevent harm to a higher-risk pregnancy. Across the

country, pregnant workers continue to be denied simple, no-

cost or lowcost, temporary adjustments in their work settings

or activities and instead risk being fired or forced to take

unpaid leave to preserve the health of their pregnancy.

This impossible choice forces many pregnant workers to

continue working without accommodations, putting women and

their pregnancies at risk of long-lasting and severe health

consequences. When pregnant workers must continue working

without accommodations, they risk miscarriage, excessive

bleeding, and other devastating health consequences. Black

women have the highest incidence of preterm birth and yet we

know that workplace accommodations such as reducing heavy

lifting, bending, or excessive standing can help prevent

preterm birth, the leading cause of infant mortality in this

country.

Black women also experience higher rates of preeclampsia,

which is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. We

are still learning about how to prevent this dangerous

medical condition, yet we know that simply allowing workers

to take bathroom breaks can prevent urinary tract infections

which are ``strongly associated with preeclampsia. Similarly,

ensuring pregnant workers can drink a sufficient amount of

water can also help pregnant workers maintain their blood

pressure which is critically important since hypertensive

disorders (high blood pressure) are also a leading cause of

maternal morbidity and mortality. By putting a national

pregnancy accommodation standard in place, the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act has the potential to improve some of the

most serious health consequences Black pregnant people

experience. Furthermore, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

will help remove one of the many barriers Black pregnant

people face at work by ensuring they are afforded immediate

relief under the law, and not thrown into financial dire

straits for needing pregnancy accommodations.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to

a serious problem. As organizations dedicated to maternal

health and closing racial disparities in pregnancy and birth

outcomes, we understand the importance of reasonable

workplace accommodations to ensure that pregnant persons can

continue to provide for their families and have safe and

healthy pregnancies. We collectively urge swift passage of

the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely,

Black Mamas Matter Alliance; March of Dimes; National WIC

Association; 1,000 Days; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics;

American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Agricultural Justice

Project; Ancient Song Doula Services; Association of Maternal

& Child Health Programs; Baobab Birth Collective; Black

Women's Health Imperative; Breastfeeding in Combat Boots.

California WIC Association; Centering Equity, Race &

Cultural Literacy in Family Planning (CERCL-FP); Earth

Action, Inc.; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project;

Farmworker Association of Florida; Feminist Women's Health

Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Healthy Mothers,

Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia; Healthy Women; Human

Rights Watch; Mom2Mom Global; NARAL Pro-Choice America.

National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's

Health; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health

Network; Nebraska WIC Association; Nurse-Family Partnership;

Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood

Federation of America; Public Citizen, SisterReach;

SisterSong National Women of Color Reproductive Justice

Collective; U.S. Breastfeeding Committee; Workplace Fairness;

Wisconsin WIC Association; ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the YWCA dealing with 200 local organizations in 45 States.

Mr. Speaker, women are in the workplace. They are the backbone of this economy. We need to pass this legislation and pass it now.

I thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Nadler for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, the Democratic Working Women Task Force, the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and as cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which would ensure that pregnant workers can continue to do their jobs and support their families by requiring employers to make workplace adjustments for those workers who need them due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, like breastfeeding.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private sector employers with more than 15 employees and public sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are not required to make an accommodation if it imposes an undue hardship on an employer's business.

Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment opportunities, retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation, or forced to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation is available.

Workers denied a reasonable accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will have the same rights and remedies as those established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including recovery of lost pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provide some protections for pregnant workers, there is currently no federal law that explicitly and affirmatively guarantees all pregnant workers the right to a reasonable accommodation so they can continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. --, No. 12-1226, 135 S.Ct. 1338; 191 L. Ed. 2d 279 (2015) allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims under the PDA.

But pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination, requiring workers to prove that their employers accommodated non-pregnant workers with similar limitations.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are no similar conditions to pregnancy.

As a result, in two-thirds of cases after Young, courts ruled against pregnant workers who were seeking accommodations under the PDA.

Providing accommodations ensures that women can work safely while pregnant instead of getting pushed out of work at a time when they may need their income the most.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is especially important considering that many pregnant workers hold physically demanding or hazardous jobs, and thus may be especially likely to need reasonable accommodations at some point during their pregnancy.

Mr. Speaker, research shows that pregnant workers are likely to hold jobs that involve standing and making continuous movements, which can raise specific challenges during pregnancy.

Such physically demanding work--including jobs that require prolonged standing, long work hours, irregular work schedules, heavy lifting, or high physical activity--carries an increased risk of pre-term delivery and low birth weight.

Twenty-one (20.9) percent of pregnant workers are employed in low- wage jobs, which are particularly likely to be physically demanding.

Pregnant black and Latina women are disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, which means as a result, these workers are especially likely to stand, walk or run continuously during work, and therefore may be more likely to need an accommodation at some point during pregnancy to continue to work safely.

Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities: elementary school teachers, nurses, and home health aides.

Employers can accommodate pregnant workers because pregnant women make up a small share of the workforce, even in the occupations where they are most likely to work, which means that only a very small share of an employer's workforce is likely to require pregnancy accommodations in any given year since less than two percent of all workers in the United States are pregnant each year.

Not all pregnant workers require any form of accommodation at work, so only a fraction of that small fraction will need accommodations.

For example, pregnant women are most likely to work as elementary and middle school teachers but only three percent (3.2 percent) of all elementary and middle school teachers are pregnant women.

But workers employed in four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--retail salesperson; waiter or waitress;

nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; and cashier--who report continuously standing on the job would particularly benefit from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, prolonged standing at work has been shown to more than triple the odds of pregnant women taking leave during pregnancy or becoming unemployed.

Another four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--waiter or waitress; nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; cashier; and secretaries and administrative assistants--involve making repetitive motions continuously on the job which have been shown to increase the likelihood of pregnant women taking sick leave.

Pregnant workers in low-wage jobs are particularly in need of this legislation granting them the clear legal right to receive accommodations because, in addition to the physically demanding nature of their jobs, they often face inflexible workplace cultures that make it difficult to informally address pregnancy-related needs.

For instance, workplace flexibility--such as the ability to alter start and end times or take time off for a doctor's appointment--is extremely limited for workers in low-wage jobs.

Over 40 percent of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that their employers do not permit them to decide when to take breaks; between two-thirds and three-quarters of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that they are unable to choose their start and quit times; and roughly half report having very little or no control over the scheduling of hours more generally.

The second most common occupation for pregnant Latinas--maids and housekeeping cleaners--is especially physically demanding because, according to the data, 80 percent of maids and housekeeping cleaners stood continuously, 38 percent were exposed to disease daily, and 70 percent walked or ran continuously on the job.

Occupations that have seen the most growth among pregnant women in the past decade expose many workers to disease or infection daily; depending on the disease, this can pose particular challenges to some pregnant workers at some points during pregnancy.

When pregnant workers are exposed to some diseases, they face particular risks; pregnant women with rubella are at risk for miscarriage or stillbirth and their developing fetuses are at risk for severe birth defects.

Mr. Speaker, no one should have to choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy, which is why they should have clear rights to reasonable accommodations on the job to ensure they are not forced off the job at the moment they can least afford it.

I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with Republicans and help protect religious liberty.

The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our country's financial system.

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the pandemic.

It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people.

Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out of the system entirely.

Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered.

Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications.

During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by consumer reporting agencies.

The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for bipartisan solutions.

House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our financial system remains safe and sound.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country and our communities safe.

When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this year's Police Week.

Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019.

I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the police.

Don't believe me? Just take their word for it.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.''

Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks a new future for our city.''

Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.''

Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. Let's look at some of the numbers.

Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides.

Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides.

Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman Don Bacon's Back the Blue Act, Congressman John Rutherford's Protect and Serve Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about each one of those bills.

The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer.

The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them.

The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls). He is here to explain this amendment. He is my good friend and a former law enforcement officer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is being used. Let's be clear about something.

California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants.

And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't mean budget tricks or funny math.''

Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, not mine.

Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is historic. It marks a new future for our city.''

Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you have crime rates rising to historic levels.

My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying because that is what is going to make our communities safer.''

So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, and their policies have proven it in many cities.

And what do the American people get?

Increased crime rates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking about police themselves--lots of talking about police.

Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''

So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police.

Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, too.''

The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.''

Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.''

Again, this is what Democrats say about police.

And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an important step, in affecting change and working to end these injustices.''

That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the resolution said.

``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.''

So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who have died defending our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend the former general.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I said

when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually honor our police officers.

Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to help the police.

Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were caught inside the vehicle.

When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making a difference and helping people.''

That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their three bills through an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers.

Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.