Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of House Resolution 486, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 13.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, Conciliation Rule.

This resolution will help ensure fairness for those who bring forth charges of unlawful workplace discrimination.

When the EEOC has found that an employer likely violated the law, it is required under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to engage in conciliation before filing a lawsuit. This conciliation process is meant to be an informal and confidential opportunity for parties to settle a charge of discrimination in lieu of going to court.

Unfortunately, in the final weeks of the Trump administration, the EEOC issued a final rule that imposed onerous new requirements on the conciliation process.

Under the new rule, the EEOC must provide an employer with a written summary of the facts and the nonprivileged information the EEOC relied on to determine that the employer violated the law. Notably, the rule requires the EEOC to expose the identities of workers or groups of workers for whom relief is being sought unless they proactively request anonymity, and their witnesses.

This new rule will put a thumb on the scale in favor of employers in cases where the EEOC found that they likely violated workers' civil rights. Specifically, the rule incentivizes employers to focus litigation on whether the EEOC failed to satisfy the rule's new requirements instead of whether the employer engaged in unlawful discrimination.

In fact, on settlement--settlements had been more likely since the Supreme Court ruled that this conciliation process should be informal, unlike the rule that was promulgated late in the Trump administration. This will allow unscrupulous employers to drag out the conciliation process, possibly for years--and even avoid accountability altogether-- by just litigating over whether the EEOC complied with the conciliation rule rather than correcting the discriminatory process.

The EEOC rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC. It was a unanimous decision. It held that the EEOC must

have the discretion to use whatever informal means of settlement are appropriate in each individual case. However, under the new rule, a rigid conciliation process will apply across the board, one-size-fits- all, in every case of workplace discrimination.

This solution will likely lead to increased retaliation against victims of discrimination and witnesses, as well as needless delays in justice for workers. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. This is why civil rights leaders and worker advocates across the country have called on Congress to pass this Congressional Review Act resolution and restore fairness for victims of workplace discrimination.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy from the Biden administration in support of this resolution.

Statement of Administration Policy

S.J. Res. 13--A joint resolution for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of

Commission's Conciliation Procedures''--Sen. Murray, D-WA, and no

cosponsors

The Administration supports Senate passage of Senate Joint

Resolution 13 to nullify the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission's (EEOC) recently promulgated ``Update of

Commission's Conciliation Procedures,'' which became

effective on February 16, 2021, under the Congressional

Review Act. The rule that S.J. Res. 13 would nullify imposed

onerous and rigid new procedures on the EEOC's obligation to

conciliate or ``settle'' meritorious claims of employment

discrimination, that risks unduly delaying and diverting

limited resources from agency efforts to investigate and

resolve meritorious claims of employment discrimination. The

rule increases the risk of retaliation by making it easier

for employers to demand the identities of those with

information about unlawful discrimination, which will likely-

have a chilling effect on the willingness of victims and

witnesses to come forward. S.J. Res. 13 would nullify the

rule's unnecessary and burdensome standards that would likely

result in increased charge backlogs, and lengthier charge

investigation, resolution and litigation times. The

resolution will also ensure that EEOC has the flexibility to

tailor settlements to the facts and circumstances of each

case, thus increasing the likelihood of voluntary compliance.

The resolution will furthermore ensure that justice for

workers subject to discrimination is not delayed, or

potentially denied, due to costly and time-consuming

collateral litigation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services, and cosponsor of the House version of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to state on the question of whether or not the individuals can be revealed, identifying the aggrieved individuals must take place, but not if the individual or individuals have requested anonymity. That means you have to know that you are about to be revealed. You have to proactively request anonymity. If you haven't gone through those steps, then you will be revealed.

That is an unnecessary step. It puts people in unnecessary jeopardy, and I hope they would not subject that. It is not necessary. The EEOC has an obligation to do conciliation, but they need to do it on an individualized case, best aimed at settlement and based on an individual case, and reveal the information that is best for that purpose, and no more.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is our responsibility to reverse the EEOC's new conciliation rule. Before this harmful rule change, the EEOC's conciliation process was what it was meant to be, an informal, flexible, confidential opportunity to settle discrimination claims before going to court. That is what the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2015.

Now, the new conciliation rule is threatening to stack the process against workers by subjecting those who make discrimination claims to an increased risk of retaliation and allowing employers to hijack the process to focus on whether it failed to conciliate, not whether the employer violated the law.

Simply put, this is an unnecessary new regulation which will, at best, delay justice for victims of discrimination and, at worst, open the door for collateral litigation, adding potentially years to the process before ever reaching the merits of the discrimination claim.

That is why advocates of victims of discrimination support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights signed by 24 civil rights groups in support of the resolution.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2021.

Re Support S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act

Resolution of Disapproval to Protect Workers from a

Harmful EEOC Rule

Dear Representative: The undersigned 24 civil and workers'

rights organizations urge you to vote for S.J. Res. 13, a

Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval to

undo a January 14, 2021, Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) final rule that threatens to harm working

people seeking relief from discrimination and to impede the

work of the EEOC.

The EEOC final rule made several changes to conciliation,

the process by which the EEOC tries to settle a charge of

workplace discrimination. Instead of ensuring that

discrimination charges are resolved fairly, the EEOC's final

rule imposes several new obligations and disclosures that:

Significantly weight the conciliation process in favor of

employers;

Delay justice and increase the likelihood of harm to

working people;

Divert scarce EEOC staff time and resources away from

investigating discrimination; and

Contravene controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The Senate passed S.J. Res. 13 on May 19, 2021. If the

House now passes this resolution, Congress could undo this

harmful rule and restore the status quo with respect to the

EEOC's procedures. A resolution of disapproval is an

appropriate exercise of Congress's power in this case,

because the CRA is the most expeditious and effective option

for addressing the negative impacts of the EEOC's final rule.

The EEOC must be able to conduct its work efficiently in

order to be effective in its mission to prevent and remedy

workplace discrimination. This mission is even more critical

in the middle of a global pandemic that continues to have

severe economic repercussions for women, people of color, and

other marginalized communities, including a heightened risk

of job loss, health and safety hazards, and discrimination

based on sex, race, age, and disability.

Individuals who experience discrimination on the job

already face significant hurdles to seeking redress,

including retaliation, lack of information about their

rights, and lack of access to legal assistance. When an

individual does file a charge of discrimination against their

employer with the EEOC, the agency collects information and

conducts an investigation. If the EEOC finds ``reasonable

cause'' to believe employment discrimination has occurred,

the parties are invited to participate in the conciliation

process, which seeks to settle or resolve the charges of

discrimination informally and confidentially, in lieu of

filing a lawsuit. Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt

resolution of charges informally before considering or

proceeding with litigation, and the EEOC may only pursue

litigation if conciliation has failed.

The final rule will only deepen the barriers working people

face coming forward to report discrimination and obtain

justice. It requires the EEOC to grant the employer access to

details of the victim and witnesses' identity and

allegations, escalating the risk of retaliation for workers.

Claims of retaliation made up more than half of all charges

filed at the EEOC in FY 2020, and fear of retaliation

prevents many victims of discrimination from coming forward

and many witnesses from being forthright--something that may

be especially true during an economic crisis. The rule also

requires the EEOC to disclose critical information concerning

the EEOC's legal analysis of the case to employers, and

employers only. In other words, the EEOC would be required to

automatically tum over its case files to employers whom the

agency believes to have acted unlawfully, but not to the

working people who are seeking a remedy for the

discrimination they faced. This practice would exacerbate

resource and information inequities between the parties to

the benefit of employers only. Although the proposed rule

would allow disclosures to the charging party upon request,

many working people who file charges are unrepresented by

counsel and will not know to make such a request. The EEOC,

whose mission is to prevent and remedy discrimination, should

not, in its own procedural rules, disadvantage the very party

seeking to remedy discrimination.

By imposing inflexible rules on the conciliation process,

the EEOC final rule also flouts congressional intent and is

inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. In its unanimous

2015 decision Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, the Supreme Court

explained that

``every aspect of Title VII's conciliation provision smacks

of flexibility,'' which allows the EEOC to tailor its

approach to conciliation in the way most appropriate in each

case. Without flexibility, the EEOC will be forced to divert

resources away from investigating and remedying workplace

discrimination and put them toward satisfying the final

rule's burdensome standards, resulting in increased delays at

the expense of victims of discrimination.

In addition, the rules would saddle EEOC with wasteful

collateral litigation attacking the conciliation process,

prolonging harm to workers through increased delay. This

tactic was prevalent before Mach Mining, and that case itself

shows the potential impact: The workers in Mach Mining--women

excluded from coal mining jobs due to sex discrimination--

were forced to wait nine years after the first charge was

filed for relief, in part because of unmeritorious employer

challenges to the conciliation process.

By invoking the CRA and passing a resolution of

disapproval, Congress could quickly restore the status quo

with respect to the EEOC's conciliation procedures,

minimizing the harm to workers and eliminating the need for

the EEOC to expend its scarce resources either undertaking

rulemaking processes to rescind the conciliation rule or

implementing the onerous new procedures in the final rule,

and defending the sufficiency of the new conciliation process

in collateral litigation by employers.

Importantly, application of the CRA to the final rule

ensures that the EEOC would be prohibited from promulgating a

``substantially'' similar rule in the future that would

hinder vigorous enforcement of federal workplace

antidiscrimination laws. The final conciliation rule was both

procedurally and substantively flawed, raising concerns about

its integrity. As such, Congress's exercise of the CRA would

be warranted here.

Accordingly, we urge you to support and vote for S.J. Res.

13, the CRA resolution of disapproval of the EEOC's final

rule. Please contact Gaylynn Burroughs of The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights at

burroughs@civilrights.org, or Maya Raghu of the National

Women's Law Center at mraghu@nwlc.org, if you have any

questions.

Thank you,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,

National Women's Law Center, A Better Balance, AFL-CIO,

American Association of University Women (AAUW), Anti-

Defamation League, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance,

AFL-CIO, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for

American Progress, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority,

Futures Without Violence, Institute for Women's Policy

Research, National Action Network, National Association of

Councils on Developmental Disablities, National Employment

Law Project, National Organization for Women, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Workrights

Institute, Public Citizen, Sikh Coalition, TIME'S UP Now,

Women Employed, Workplace Fairness.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow employers to drag out the conciliation process rather than be held accountable for violating workers' civil rights.

As I said at the beginning of this debate, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution and taking a critical step to ensuring that those who suffer workplace discrimination can get timely and fair justice.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for working with me on the House version of the resolution.

I ask for the support of the House to pass the resolution to overturn the EEOC regulation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up the bill (H.R. 2062) to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate standards for Federal employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and for other purposes, 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. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which I reintroduced this year with our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

For decades, the Federal Government has recognized the need to protect older workers against discrimination on the basis of age. Unfortunately, in 2009, the Supreme Court severely eroded protections for older workers in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

In its decision, the Court set a significantly higher burden of proof for workers alleging age discrimination. Under this standard, workers must prove that age discrimination was the decisive cause of an employer's action rather than just one of the motivating factors, as was the case before the Gross decision.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the NAACP supporting the bill and discussing the Gross decision.

Mr. Speaker, making cases more difficult to prove contradicts our responsibility to support older workers who have been vulnerable to workplace discrimination. In fact, more than half of older workers are pushed out of longtime jobs before they choose to retire.

Age discrimination also holds back our economy. Research by AARP and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that, absent age discrimination, older workers would have contributed $850 billion more in 2018 to the gross domestic product. Clearly, our labor market and economy cannot fully recover from the pandemic if we fail to support our older workers.

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a bipartisan initiative that would restore the pre-2009 evidentiary standard for age discrimination claims. This would effectively realign the burden of proof for age discrimination claims so it would again be the same standard that is required for proving discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and national origin.

This legislation also reinstates this standard for disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as claims for retaliation for rights protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These statutes have all been implicated by the Gross decision.

Last Congress, 261 bipartisan House Members voted in favor of passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This Congress, I hope we can come together again and take this next step to ensure that older workers can achieve justice.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in support of H.R. 2062.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2062--Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act--Rep.

Scott, D-VA, and 112 cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of the Protecting

Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). The

bipartisan legislation would restore legal protections for

older Americans and hold employers accountable for age

discrimination.

The bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, to replace the ``but-for'' test established in

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. with the ``motivating

factor'' test. The bill thereby aligns the burden of proof

for age discrimination with similar standards for proving

discrimination based on race and national origin. In

addition, the bill allows individuals claiming discrimination

to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence to prove

an unlawful practice occurred.

Workplace discrimination prevents people from fully

accessing the American dream and limits the contributions

that they can make to our shared prosperity. Ending it is a

priority for the Administration. The President supports this

bipartisan legislation that protects workers from age

discrimination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Aging.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

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

I include in the Record a letter from the AARP, which says, in part, ``Older workers are valuable assets to their employers and the economy. Despite that, 78 percent of older workers reported having seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace in 2020, up markedly from 61 percent in 2018. More than half of older workers are forced out of a job before they intend to retire. Nine out of 10 of those who do find work never again match their prior earnings. Making matters worse, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly diminished job prospects and future retirement security of older workers. In April, over half of job seekers ages 55 and older continued to be long-term unemployed, 53.3 percent, compared to 42.3 percent of job seekers ages 16 to 54. The labor force participation rates for older women workers, along with their earning power and future retirement security, have been particularly hard-hit by COVID.'' All of that is in the letter.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a bipartisan bill that has been introduced over many Congresses with growing support. Over the last decade, Members have debated this bill through multiple legislative hearings, and bills in both the House and the Senate have been introduced and improved every Congress since 2009.

Despite the bipartisan legacy of this proposal, some of my colleagues have raised disappointing opposition today. But let's be clear. This bill is not about increasing the number of age discrimination claims. It is about giving victims of discrimination a fair shot at getting relief. It is simply restoring basic protections for older workers.

Yes, discrimination against older workers is already illegal, but, regrettably, it is unnecessarily harder to prove because of the 2009 decision. In spite of the fact that it is more difficult, cases are still being brought. But if the cases were as easy to bring or the same difficulty to bring as other cases, even more cases would have been filed.

We know this is more difficult because in the original case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Jack Gross successfully proved that his employer had demoted older workers who refused to accept a buyout, while giving their jobs to younger workers. Yet it was only after the Supreme Court changed the rules and required Mr. Gross to retry his case that he lost with the higher standard, because, despite having the same facts, the same parties, and the same court, he lost his case.

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is designed to ensure that older workers like Mr. Gross are not denied justice and fair treatment that they deserve.

We have heard about attorneys' fees. We need to just remind everybody that lawyers are only awarded attorneys' fees when they win the case. So if you want to reduce attorneys' fees, the businesses can stop discriminating.

I hope we can all agree that it is time to stand up for older workers and treat all workers facing discrimination, whether it is on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, or age, with consistency and fairness.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) again for working with me on this bipartisan priority.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments in this en bloc amendment.

Mr. Brown has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit an annual report to Congress on the number of age discrimination claims brought under this act.

Ms. Williams has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit a report to Congress on any remaining disparities faced by workers pursuing relief under the mixed motive standard whose cases were covered by the ADEA, as well as other antidiscrimination laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that these two amendments would improve the bill.

The one from Mr. Brown would give information that is already being provided now, but this would just make sure it continues. It is being provided on a voluntary basis, these annual reports.

And Ms. Williams offers a very interesting analysis that some people may be being discriminated against on multiple grounds and pointed out the Federal Reserve study that showed that older workers who happen to be women fared a lot worse than the older workers who happen to be men. We may need to figure out how we deal with that, but we need the data before we can move forward.

I hope that we adopt this amendment, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, (Ms. Manning), a distinguished member on the Committee of Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the first amendment that requires the GAO study only seeks to say whether the cases went up or down. The cases can go up because there is more discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was because of the change in standard. It could be in spite of the standard. And all it does is delay the implementation of the bill.

The other sets a different standard for retaliation, where you can win your case that you didn't get promoted but lose your case on the fact that you got hired just because there is a differential standard. Well, that doesn't make much sense.

It seems to me that we should go back to the way it was before the Gross decision, have one standard in all of the discrimination cases, and have people be able to prove their case the way they have always been able to prove their case.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his hard work on this amendment and on the bill itself. He has been a leader on helping older workers avoid discrimination.

This amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), would provide further information on how many women are adversely affected by age discrimination as a motivating factor in the workplace, as well as provide best practices to combat gender and age discrimination. These practices will help support older women who may face multiple kinds of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I also want to thank him for his distinguished leadership on the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the service of Jordan Barab who served as the senior health and safety advisor to the Education & Labor Committee after serving in senior positions in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in two different Administrations. When Jordan announced his retirement from the Committee, Members of the Committee expressed deep appreciation for the expertise he imparted to the U.S. House of Representatives, especially when we were confronted with the spread of COVID-19.

Jordan's experience working to enhance protections for healthcare workers during the H1N1 flu epidemic--when he led the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health during the Obama Administration--informed his counsel to the Committee and Congress to have OSHA develop an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. That expertise was also helpful to the Commonwealth of Virginia which became the first state to develop its own emergency temporary standard to protect workers from COVID-19. As a result, other states had a model with which to follow suit.

Jordan also worked with Representative Joe Courtney (CT) to advance legislation requiring health care and social service employers to implement plans to prevent workplace violence in the House-passed bipartisan Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act (H.R. 1195). He made sure that public employees in states without OSHA protections received workplace violence protections through Medicare. He also worked with Representative Judy Chu (CA) on legislation to provide OSHA protections for workers from heat stress.

Over the decades, Jordan has been at the forefront of our nation's efforts to make sure workers come home safely from their job every day. He was a key leader in efforts to seek stronger worker protections regarding bloodborne pathogens, tuberculosis, and ergonomic hazards. Jordan also worked for five years to develop safety recommendations to prevent catastrophic chemical accidents at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board (CSB), as well as nearly two decades as Assistant Director of Research for Health and Safety with the American Federation of State Municipal and County Employees (AFSCME).

In his earlier work with the Committee, under the leadership of Chairman George Miller (CA), Jordan focused on legislation to prevent combustible dust fires and explosions--an issue brought into sharp focus following the 2008 dust explosion which killed 14 and left over 40 injured at a sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Jordan was the lead staffer into the investigations and legislation to prevent the obliteration of workers' lungs from the inhalation of a flavoring chemical used in popcorn called diacetyl. Jordan also examined the underreporting of injuries and illnesses, a practice that undermines effective workplace safety.

Jordan's dedication to the safety of workers has spanned across the Committee, OSHA, CSB, AFSCME and the labor movement. There is no question that there are many workers who avoided injury or illness because of workplace safety improvements that came about because of Jordan's work. He remains a trusted advisor--and may not easily escape our inquiries when we have questions.

On behalf of workers, their families, and the people of the country, I thank Jordan Barab for his service to the public and lasting contribution to workplace safety.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the life and legacy of our dearly departed friend and colleague Congressman Alcee Hastings, who passed away earlier this month.

Alcee and I were both elected to Congress in 1992. We were part of a historic class of new African American lawmakers from the South. Few would make such a tremendous and impactful mark on this institution than Alcee Hastings. He was one of Congress' most steadfast advocates for civil and human rights, working families, and the most vulnerable in our society.

He bravely battled pancreatic cancer for the last year and a half. And despite this devastating diagnosis, Alcee remained a powerful and active voice for his constituents and the state of Florida.

I will miss seeing him on the House floor. I will miss his sharp- witted questioning in the House Rules Committee. I will miss his friendship.

Madam Speaker, our nation lost one of its most dedicated public servants. And in Alcee Hastings, we lost one of our most unique, friendly and hardest working colleagues. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Patricia, children, staff, constituents and many, many friends.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act.

Over the past year, we have voiced exceptional praise for healthcare and social service workers, who have risked their lives to care for ourselves and our loved ones. Yet, for too long, we have failed to address the high and growing rates of workplace violence for these workers, who are regularly beaten, kicked, punched, and sometimes even killed on the job.

In 2018, healthcare workers accounted for nearly three out of four of all nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses caused by violence. Let me repeat that. In 2018, healthcare workers alone accounted for nearly three out of four of all nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses caused by violence.

Many of these incidents are foreseeable and can be prevented by sound workplace violence prevention plans. They work, and when they are implemented, they can reduce workers' compensation claims.

Yet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, still has no enforceable workplace standard that requires healthcare and social service employers to implement violence prevention programs. We have tried voluntary guidance for the past 25 years, yet still too many employers choose not to follow the best evidence on what is well understood to be authoritative guidance issued by OSHA.

To make matters worse, without action from Congress, protections for healthcare workers and social service workers are nowhere in sight. OSHA typically takes 7 to 20 years to issue a new standard. The recent beryllium standard that was adopted a couple of years ago was in the works for over 17 years.

We cannot ask healthcare and social service workers to wait any longer, particularly during this global pandemic when Congress has the ability to ensure that OSHA can act as quickly as possible to protect workers' lives.

Madam Speaker, to that end, H.R. 1195 directs OSHA to issue an interim final standard within 1 year and a final standard within 42 months, requiring healthcare and social service employers to develop and implement a workplace violence prevention plan. It protects workers from retaliation for reporting assaults to their employers or government authorities. It also protects the employees of healthcare facilities run by State, county, or local governments in the 24 States that are not covered by either Federal OSHA or a State-run OSHA plan.

Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to join us in voting for this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, 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 materials on H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, our country codified the basic idea that all workers should earn equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex. Regrettably, more than five decades later and after the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, that promise remains unfulfilled.

Today, women continue to be paid, on average, 82 cents on the dollar compared to men. This wage disparity is far worse for women of color, who make less than White men and White women. It exists across every sector, regardless of education, experience, occupation, industry or job title. A recent Census Bureau study found that 38 to 70 percent of the gender wage gap is unexplained and likely due to discrimination.

Drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. This impacts both workers and their families, often meaning the difference between financial stability and perpetual hardship.

The Paycheck Fairness Act offers an opportunity to finally secure equal pay for equal work. The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act by bolstering workers' rights to discuss their wages with coworkers and making it easier for workers to join class action lawsuits; enhancing the enforcement tools available to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Labor Department; and, more importantly, by

closing loopholes for employer defenses and requiring employers to prove pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons.

The Biden administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of this bill. It states: ``Ensuring equal pay is essential to advancing American values of fairness and equity.''

Then it adds: ``The Paycheck Fairness Act is commonsense legislation that would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and give workers more tools to fight sex-based pay discrimination.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy of H.R. 7.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7--Paycheck Fairness Act--Rep. DeLauro, D-CT, and 225 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Ensuring equal pay is essential

to advancing American values of fairness and equity. Women

lose thousands of dollars each year, and hundreds of

thousands over a lifetime, because of the gender and racial

wage gap. Women working full-time, year-round in 2019 earned

82 cents for every dollar earned by men working full-time;

year-round, and these disparities are greater for women of

color. Pay inequity also impacts individuals who face

intersecting forms of discrimination based on sexual

orientation and gender identity, including LGBTQ+

individuals.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of women have

dropped out of the labor force, partly reflecting the

increased domestic labor demands on women. Caregiving demands

often fall disproportionately on women, which leads to many

women having to reduce their hours, resulting in lower

earnings. As more and more American families rely on women's

income, the pay gap hurts not only women, but also the

families who depend on them. The cumulative impact of wage

gaps adds up to financial insecurity over the course of a

career for women and their families and for generations who

follow.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is commonsense legislation that

would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and give workers more

tools to fight sex-based pay discrimination. It would also

take major steps toward increasing pay transparency, an

essential provision to advance equality in the workplace, by

explicitly protecting workers from retaliation for simply

discussing their compensation with their colleagues. The bill

would also expand opportunities for workers to receive

training on effective negotiation skills. The bill would also

limit an employer's ability to rely on salary history during

the hiring process to set pay, or when determining wages for

a promotion. H.R. 7 would hold employers accountable by

closing judicially created loopholes for employer defenses

and by adding a class action option under the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. The bill would require the collection of

pay data to enable better enforcement of laws prohibiting pay

discrimination.

The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with

the Congress to address pay equity and urges quick action on

this landmark bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is the Assistant Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the sponsor of the bill, a champion for equal pay, and the chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will prohibit paying all the men a bonus and none of the women a bonus, although they have produced equally for the business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the co-chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the previous head of the EEOC.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time is available on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a co-chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time to secure equal pay for equal work. Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has driven over 2 million women out of the workforce. As women return to the workplace, failure to strengthen the equal pay protections will exacerbate and entrench the gender wage gap for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that discrimination exists. The Paycheck Fairness Act will allow victims the tools they need to combat and also close loopholes that allows employers to escape liability for discriminatory pay differences.

Today, we are talking about financial security for millions of families. Sixty-four percent of mothers are either the sole family breadwinner or co-breadwinner. We cannot continue to allow gender-based pay inequity to rob half of all workers and their families the wages they deserve.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is our chance to finally help close the gender wage gap by reinforcing the Equal Pay Act and strengthening protections for working women. The bill would ensure that gender equality on the job is not an aspiration but a reality.

Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 303, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, these amendments will: require the EEOC to provide for the collection of annual compensation data for employees disaggregated by race, sex, and national origin; add a requirement that employers post notices and distribute information electronically informing employees of their rights under this act; direct the Department of Labor establish a program to award grants to employers to engage in training and conduct self-audits to identify and reduce bias in pay practices; direct the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study and a research literature review of gender wage gap in the teenage workforce; and reestablish the National Equal Pay Equity Task Force that had been set up under the Obama administration to coordinate efforts between the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management.

These amendments will make meaningful improvements to the bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Madam Speaker, I have two additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Madam Speaker, I hope we would adopt these three good amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

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

I would hope we would defeat the amendment. This just recreates the loopholes that we are trying to close. You have to start with the idea that there is a differential in pay. And what we are trying to do is-- if you can explain this in any kind of way that is business-related, then they get away with it.

The Fair Pay Act says it has to be bona fide and required by the job. If it is not required by the job, why do you have a differential in pay?

We can do better than this, and I hope we defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1868.

Since the start of the pandemic, Congress has passed several emergency COVID-19 response packages to help our communities get back on their feet. Unfortunately, as the chairman mentioned, due to technicalities in the reconciliation process, some of that progress will be wiped away unless we pass this legislation.

So H.R. 1868 is necessary to prevent the automatic, across-the-board funding cuts that will undermine our recovery. Just as the ranking member mentioned, that will happen unless we pass this bill. Many of those cuts will occur within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.

For example, the legislation before us protects student borrowers from automatic increases and loan origination fees and would increase the cost of taking out a student loan.

The bill protects TEACH Grants, which help recruit talented individuals into the classroom.

The proposal preserves funding for many of our colleges struggling to survive during the pandemic.

Passing this legislation will prevent cuts to grants that go to students whose parents made the ultimate sacrifice serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, this bill protects Americans' access to affordable healthcare during the global health emergency.

Mr. Speaker, Congress took bold action to get our country through the pandemic by enacting the American Rescue Plan. Now we must take this final step in the reconciliation process to ensure that we do not undermine critical programs that students and families urgently need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I rise in support of equality and the principle that our Constitution was designed, not to shore up the dominance of the historically powerful, but to ensure the rights of all and to foster a society in which each of us is free to shape our future based on our abilities. The resolution today seeks to remove the deadline Congress put in place for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. While ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is imperative to enshrine equal rights for women, I do not believe it is necessary to strike the deadline for ratification. However, by voting on this legislation, we may imply that it is necessary for Congress to lift a self-imposed deadline in order for the ratification to be effective. I do not prescribe to this view.

Congressional authority to propose Amendments to the Constitution and the mode of ratification is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Article V requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose an amendment. Congress can choose ratification through three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. Once the amendment is proposed to the states, there is no Constitutionally imposed time limit on the ratification process. Article V of the Constitution is silent with regard to when a state must consider and ratify an amendment. In fact, the ratification process for the 27th Amendment took more than two hundred years.

Historically, Congress has ratified amendments without specific time limitations. The first amendment to contain a time limit was the 18th Amendment, which established the prohibition of alcohol. The text of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments each contained language limiting the time frame for ratification. In contrast, the text of the Equal Rights Amendment ratified by the states does not contain a time limit. It is the proposing clause sent to the states for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment which contains a seven-year time limitation. Notwithstanding a lower district court ruling to the contrary, the language of a proposing clause is not legally binding. The ratification process of the Equal Rights Amendment was properly before the states and was reasonable and sufficiently contemporaneous. Therefore, having been ratified by Virginia and a sufficient number of other states pursuant to Article V, the ERA, in my judgement, has become part of the Constitution.

This resolution is unlikely to add to the argument that the ERA has been ratified, and, because it implies that the deadline needs to be removed, it may strengthen arguments against because if the deadline is binding, then passage of this resolution in the House, without passage in the Senate, certainly does not cure that defect. And even with Senate concurrence, the effect of the resolution on state ratifications between the deadline and the removal of the deadline is unclear. So the passage of the resolution in the House and Senate will at best add confusion to the debate and at worst will strengthen arguments against the conclusion that the ERA has been ratified. Nevertheless, forced with a vote, it makes more sense to vote in favor than to oppose the resolution.

Regardless of the outcome of this resolution on the ERA itself, the fight for equality must continue. Women still face hurdles in the pathways to success. On average, women still earn less than men for the same job functions. Pregnant women often lack basic protections and reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Perhaps most concerning of all, violence against women is still widespread and undermines the educational and social potential of women and young children in this country.

I am proud to have worked with my Democratic colleagues in the House to pass legislation to remedy these inequalities. The House recently passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (H.R. 842) which protects workers who are trying to form a union. While in most of America, women earn less than men, women and men working under a union contract receive equal pay for equal work. We have worked to fill the gaps in the patchwork of existing laws governing how and when workers take time off to care for themselves and their families. Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more working parents and low wage workers who are currently excluded from leave policies is a top priority.

There are other initiatives being considered to address inequities. Nearly two thirds of minimum wage workers in the United States are women. The Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 603) will raise the income levels of the most economically insecure households and would be a step in the right direction towards pay equity. The Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act (H.R. 1065) is important legislation that will provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women in the workforce. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) which expands protections and provides critical funding for victim services, law enforcement training, and data collection, is now pending in Congress.

However, even if all this legislation were to become law, it would not be the same as amending the Constitution to guarantee women equal rights. Discrimination in the workplace, violence in the home, and institutional barriers require systemic legal and cultural change. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment provides an additional legal tool for combatting discrimination on the basis of sex.

We will continue the fight for equality and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.

Madam Speaker, farmworkers toil under difficult and dangerous conditions for long hours and low pay to ensure America has a safe and plentiful food supply.

Because of the scarcity of domestic farm labor, for decades, the agricultural sector has depended largely on the labor of migrant workers. The vast majority of crop workers in the United States were not born here and are undocumented or here on guest visas. Though these workers perform incredibly difficult work under hazardous conditions, they are often unable to seek recourse when their rights are violated. A pathway to citizenship, when accompanied by appropriate oversight measures, could help reduce these dedicated workers' justifiable fear of reprisal for asserting their rights. Farmworkers are integral to our communities and our economy. Creating a pathway to citizenship for these individuals--who work to feed us and our country year after year--as well as their families is both an economic and humanitarian necessity.

I support legalization of vulnerable, undocumented workers and a path to citizenship. However, in exchange for legalization for some undocumented farmworkers, this bill would depress labor standards for H-2A workers. Because weakened labor standards for H-2A workers could adversely impact the domestic workforce, this bill could negatively impact the economic security of all farmworkers.

Wage cuts for many H-2A workers in turn would depress wages for all farmworkers. The adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), which is often the binding wage paid to H-2A workers, is designed to ensure that wages paid to H-2A workers do not depress wages for U.S. farmworkers. This means the AEWR must be high enough to reflect wages paid in the local labor market. This bill would change the way the AEWR is currently calculated over the first ten years to reflect average wages paid to farmworkers in the region according to their specific occupation, rather than the average wage paid to farmworkers across all occupations. However, the bill fails to require the use of data that actually reflects local wage conditions. Additionally, while setting limitations on how much AEWR wages can decrease after

an initial one-year freeze, the bill imposes caps on wage increases from year to year, limiting whether AEWR can truly reflect wages paid in the local labor market.

As a result of these changes to the AEWR, the majority of H-2A workers would see their wages actually go down, albeit modestly, while others would see the growth in their wages capped. I have opposed similar efforts proposed by the Trump Administration that would depress wages.

This year, I was pleased to lead House efforts to include an increase to the federal minimum wage in the House-passed American Rescue Plan (H.R. 1319). While those minimum wage provisions did not ultimately survive Senate budget reconciliation rules, I will continue to push for H.R. 603, the Raise the Wage Act, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025. I am confident that in the next ten years, we will enact a meaningful increase in the federal minimum wage, boosting wages for workers across our nation--including farmworkers. However, I am concerned that H.R. 1603, Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021, will create artificial barriers to wage growth, or worse, lead to wage cuts, continuing to leave farmworkers relegated to low pay and economic insecurity.

Our country's wage and hour laws are designed to ensure that workers are guaranteed a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. But this right is only as strong as a worker's ability to hold employers accountable, especially in court. Unfortunately, this bill creates obstacles that may delay farmworkers' ability to access their day in court, when they have been victims of wage theft. While I welcome extending coverage of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) to H-2A workers, adding a mediation requirement to both the MSPA and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is problematic. This bill enables employers to impose three months of mandatory mediation when an H-2A worker brings a civil suit under these laws, even if the worker does not consent to the mediation and wants his or her day in court. This undermines the voluntary nature of mediation and provides bad actors with an avenue for delaying or denying wage recovery. This delay could prove significant for farmworkers who may be in this country for a limited amount of time to participate in litigation. This is especially fraught given that, in contrast to MSPA, the FLSA provides for recovery of unpaid wages and liquidated, or double, damages and recovery of attorney's fees, plus costs. This provision may also pull domestic farmworkers or other visa classifications of workers into required mediation where there are collective or class actions, thereby undermining incentives for other workers to join with H-2A workers to seek redress.

Last Congress, I supported the passage of H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, to ban forced arbitration in many areas, including employment, because it could delay or totally block workers' access to courts. We should promote legislation that protects workers' fundamental right to have their day in court, not delay it.

This bill denies newly legalized farmworkers and their families access to key social safety net programs. Denial of benefits that can promote economic stability, coupled with the bill's wage suppressing provisions, threatens to create a long-term pool of economically vulnerable workers. While most of these individuals do not currently have access to these benefits due to their immigration status, leaving immigrant workers who are granted legal status under this legislation without access to social safety net programs establishes a dangerous precedent that access to health care and other basic necessities can be traded away for a path to legal status.

This legislation weakens the current recruitment and hiring standards for U.S. farmworkers. A reduction in employers' obligations to hire U.S. workers under this bill will undermine one of the core principles of the H-2A program: that H-2A workers should fill in gaps in the farm workforce that U.S. employers are truly unable to fill, rather than merely replacing U.S. workers that employers could attract with reasonable efforts. I raised concerns with similar efforts to modify recruitment standards by the Trump Administration in 2019.

Agricultural work is hazardous, and workers in this sector have few legal health and safety protections. Ensuring that H-2A workers and all farmworkers have safe, healthy working conditions is critical. I am pleased that this bill requires H-2A employers to maintain heat illness prevention plans and requires H-2A employers in the dairy industry to maintain workplace safety plans. However, as presently written, some provisions are ambiguous and would be difficult to enforce; other provisions have weak minimum requirements that would limit their value. As this legislation moves forward, I would urge the inclusions of stronger health and safety standards.

Strong labor protections are vital to protect both H-2A workers, who are vulnerable given their temporary status, and domestic farmworkers, whose employers may be disincentivized to provide employment. This is especially true given that farmworkers have historically been carved out of labor and employment laws, leaving these workers with fewer wage protections and rights to bargain for better working conditions.

While this bill does make some improvements in immigration law, I look forward to supporting a version of this bill that more accurately reflects strong labor standards.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 485) to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or Stronger CAPTA.

One of the most basic responsibilities as public servants is to protect children from physical and emotional trauma of child abuse and neglect.

Unfortunately, at the beginning of the last decade, we saw a disturbing rise in rates of child maltreatment, which coincided with the devastating opioid epidemic. Now the COVID-19 pandemic is not only reaffirming the urgent need to address the growing crisis, but also, across the country, families are coping with severe financial and emotional challenges. State child protective services agencies, which have been chronically underfunded, are also struggling to help families while keeping caseworkers safe.

Stronger CAPTA is a bipartisan solution we need to prevent child abuse and neglect from happening in the first place and to provide better treatments to address child abuse when it takes place.

This legislation provides States with the resources they need to expand locally driven prevention strategies, which will help strengthen families and improve child protective services. It also invests in child protective services so that they can ensure that caseworkers will have the resources to both help children and keep themselves safe. The legislation also streamlines communications between child protective services across the country so that critical information is not lost across State lines.

Such a system would have likely saved the life of Heaven Watkins, an 11-year-old girl from my community, who tragically died because local child protective services had no way of knowing that her parents had a history of child abuse in another State.

Finally, Stronger CAPTA builds on our bipartisan commitment to keeping families together when it is in the best interest of the child.

Madam Speaker, we must do everything in our power to ensure that our Nation's children learn and grow in healthy environments. That is why, last Congress, both Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass Stronger CAPTA with broad bipartisan support. Our bipartisan effort to pass this bill again this year demonstrates that, no matter our party affiliations, we can all agree that Congress must do everything we can to support children and families.

To that end, I thank the subcommittee chair, Ms. Bonamici; and ranking subcommittee member, Mr. Comer, for their leadership on this key priority for our committees.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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

Madam Speaker, I, once again, want to thank Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Comer, as well as Ms. Stevens, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Schrier, Mr. Johnson, and Ranking Member Foxx for their leadership in advancing this bill.

Stronger CAPTA will make significant improvements in existing law by authorizing record levels of funding for prevention as well as treating child abuse, increasing accountability to make sure States are using the money effectively, and closing gaps in the law that will put vulnerable children in danger.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Rescue Plan Act.

Passing this plan will give schools the resources they need to comply with the CDC guidelines to reopen safely and to remain open, and the resources needed to make up for lost time in the classroom.

Passing this plan will help institutions of higher education weather this pandemic and provide urgent financial assistance to their students. It will help childcare providers to keep their doors open so working parents can rejoin the workforce.

Passing this plan will prevent more than a million retirees from losing their hard-earned pensions and avert an economic calamity that would destroy countless businesses and cost taxpayers at least $170 billion.

Passing this rescue plan will also improve access to affordable healthcare during the pandemic, and it will cut child poverty about in half.

Passing this plan will protect vulnerable Americans across the country, including families facing financial hardships, older Americans trying to stay safe, and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been calling on us to deliver relief and to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, we come together to send a resounding message that help is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the American Rescue Plan Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I call up the bill (H.R. 842) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, or the PRO Act.

The American economy needs a strong middle class. Labor unions play an essential role in rebuilding our middle class and improving the lives of workers and their families. There is clear evidence that workers who organize a union have higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces.

Regrettably, union membership has dropped over the last 50 years from nearly one-third of all workers in the mid-20th century to just over 10 percent of workers today. The decline of unions and workers' bargaining power are major reasons why income inequality has soared and wages have stagnated for hardworking people.

But this decline in union membership is not a product of workers' choices. A recent survey by MIT found that nearly half of nonunion workers say that they would vote to join a union if given the opportunity.

The gap between worker preferences and union membership is the result of an 85-year-old labor law that lacks the teeth to enforce workers' rights when employers unlawfully retaliate against them for organizing. The National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA, is far too weak to defend workers against intensifying antiunion attacks from special interests.

That is why we must pass the PRO Act. The legislation strengthens workers' rights by making significant upgrades in the NLRA since it was enacted 85 years ago.

First, the PRO Act provides new tools to protect workers from antiunion intimidation and retaliation. It then introduces meaningful penalties for companies that violate workers' rights and closes loopholes they use to exploit workers.

Finally, the PRO Act strengthens safeguards to ensure that workers can hold free, fair, and safe union elections.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stand up for workers and ensure that they can exercise their right to join together and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and a safe workplace. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress we held three hearings and considered 35 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the co-chair of the new Labor Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor and is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is available on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman), the vice chair of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment was made in order, so we will be considering it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, reference was made to union officials at the UAW. They were caught and prosecuted under present law. The Trump administration that prosecuted them did not make any recommendations for changes in the law.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the co-chair of the Labor Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions of the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

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

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, each of us can agree that hard work in this country should pay off. Yet, for far too long, we have allowed wealthy special interests to pad the profit margins by stripping workers of their rights.

Madam Speaker, we often voice our support for workers. Today, we have the opportunity to match our words with action by taking a historic step to ensure that they can stand together and negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces.

I want to recognize all the workers and advocates, especially my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor, for their leadership on this legislation.

There is an extensive legislative history underpinning this bill, including three hearings and a markup in the 116th Congress. The views of the committee are outlined in the committee report from the last Congress.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the PRO Act and a statement by President Biden on the House taking up the PRO Act.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 842--Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021--Rep. Scott, D-

VA, and 212 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

842, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021,

which would strengthen the Federal laws that protect workers'

right to organize a union and collectively bargain for better

wages, benefits, and working conditions.

America was not built by Wall Street. It was built by the

middle class, and unions built the middle class. Unions put

power in the hands of workers. They give workers a stronger

voice to increase wages, improve the quality of jobs and

protect job security, protect against racial and all other

forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, and protect

workers' health, safety, and benefits in the workplace.

Unions lift up workers, both union and non-union.

The policy of the United States Government, stated clearly

in the National Labor Relations Act, is to encourage union

organizing and collective bargaining. However, due to anti-

union efforts by many employers for decades, lax enforcement

of existing labor laws, and the failure to restore and

strengthen labor laws to address the real-world of labor-

management relations, only 6.3% percent of private-sector

U.S. wage and salary workers were union members in 2020.

H.R. 842 would strengthen and protect workers' right to

form a union by allowing the National Labor Relations Board

(NLRB) to assess penalties on employers who violate workers'

right to organize and ensuring that workers who suffer

retaliation for exercising these rights receive immediate

relief.

The PRO Act also defends workers' right to strike--a

fundamental economic right--and to engage in boycotts and

other acts of solidarity with workers at other companies

without penalty. It clarifies that employers may not force

employees to waive their rights to join together in

collective or class action litigation. The bill also closes

loopholes in Federal labor law by barring employers from

misclassifying workers as independent contractors and

preventing workers from being denied remedies due to their

immigration status. It establishes an expansive joint

employer standard, allowing workers to collectively bargain

with all the companies that control the terms and conditions

of their employment. The bill allows unions to collect fair-

share fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining and

administering a union contract for all workers who are

protected by the contract's terms. H.R. 842 restores workers'

access to fair union elections and ensures the results are

respected.

The Administration strongly encourages the House to pass

H.R. 842, and looks forward to working with the Congress to

enact this critical legislation that safeguards workers'

rights to organize and bargain collectively. The PRO Act will

strengthen our democracy and advance dignity in the

workplace.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No 1.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

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

Madam Speaker, these amendments will provide whistle-blower protection for workers, expose violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, require the Department of Labor to make employment arrangements and payments to union avoidance firms available and more accessible, clarify that nothing in the bill would expand the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdictional standards, direct the NLRB to establish a system of electronic voting in representation elections, clarify that nothing in the bill will be construed to amend the definition of employer or employee in any provisions of State law, direct the GAO to produce a study of the use of sectoral bargaining in peer nations, require that workers are informed of their rights under the bill in a language that they actually speak, direct the GAO to produce a study of the impact of the PRO Act's changes to the definitions of employee and employer, adds a 120-day timeline for the arbitration process when workers and employers are unable to reach a first bargaining agreement, and confirms that the bill will not affect existing provisions for worker privacy.

These amendments make meaningful improvements to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on en bloc 1, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 188, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about complaints about the dues but what we don't hear are complaints about the higher salaries, safer workplaces, and better benefits that are accrued by virtue of investments from the unions. They enjoy those benefits, so it is not unreasonable to expect people to pay a fair share of those costs.

Now, fair share does not include the political activities, does not include the annual holiday parties, but those services that the union is obligated by law to provide, negotiating salaries, negotiating a safe workplace, individualized representation when necessary, whatever they do for union members they have to do for nonunion members, a fair share of those expenses is not unreasonable.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we would defeat these amendments that would undermine that idea, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, over 500 attorneys, including 244 Members of the American Bar Association, submitted a letter in support of the persuader rule. It does not require the disclosure of legal representation but only of persuader activities.

Employers hire union avoidance persuaders to consult with them, according to the Department of Labor in 2016, and between 71 and 87 percent of union elections persuaders produce antiunion literature and materials, write speeches and statements, and identify prounion employees for discipline or reward. The employees often do not know that their employer has retained such consultants in its campaign against the union. It is one of the things that they ought to have to disclose.

So, Madam Speaker, I hope that we will defeat this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Madam Speaker, as a group, these amendments would erode workers' rights, slow down elections, allow workers to freeload, or even prohibit employers from agreeing not to interfere with the election. I would hope that we would defeat these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation because there are many reasons to vote for the American Rescue Plan.

If you want to ensure that schools can reopen safely and make up for lost time in the classroom, vote for the bill.

If you want to provide relief for institutions of higher education and their students, vote for the bill.

If you want to save our childcare system from collapse, vote for the bill.

If you want to protect workers against the virus and increase their wages, vote for this bill.

If you want to maintain access to affordable healthcare for workers who have lost their jobs, vote for the bill.

If you want to prevent more than a million retirees from losing their hard-earned pensions, vote for this bill.

Finally, if you want to keep children and families from going hungry, prevent domestic and gender-based violence, and protect older Americans during this pandemic, you must vote for this bill.

The American people need to know that help is on the way. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 447, the Clerk be directed to make the correction I have placed at the desk.