Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the first atomic bomb was exploded at the Trinity Site in New Mexico. In fact, between 1945 and 1992, the United States Government conducted more than 200 aboveground nuclear tests. These tests exposed nearby communities and the people living and working in those communities to radiation.

As a result of the exposure, tens of thousands of downwinders contracted cancers and other diseases. In 1999, in recognition of this exposure, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to provide a one-time payment to many of these individuals

in addition to the uranium miners, millers, and transporters.

Unfortunately, downwinders in many States, including my beautiful State of New Mexico, were not included and left to deal with the health effects of these explosions, like the very first bomb, on their own.

I recently met with Tina Cordova and members of the Tularosa Basin Downwinder Coalition. They told me the stories of their loved ones who died as a result of these tests. They have fought for so long for the government to simply recognize them and their pain. We do hear their voices, we see their pain, and now we must act.

It is not just New Mexicans that have suffered, it is people from Washington to the Dakotas to Texas, and all the way to Guam.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support amendment No. 241, and provide an apology to individuals in New Mexico, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nevada, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, who were exposed to radiation during the government's nuclear testing.

Identical language was included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Acts for both 2019 and 2020.

It is past time for Congress to begin to acknowledge the harm nuclear testing caused to these communities by passing this amendment. Our government owes these communities a formal apology. Let's do that.

My amendment is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, precisely because of the importance of those atomic tests and the impact on the people of New Mexico, which we all recognize was the very first test of an atomic bomb, and the importance that it played in our history, and the ending of World War

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor David Roybal's incredible contributions to our beloved New Mexico. His passion for life, for family, for the land, and for members of his community is everything that we cherish and stand for in our great state. David turns 80 years old today--still working the land and still giving back, as he has done his entire life.

David was born and raised in Chupadero, New Mexico, and comes from a family that believed and practiced service and selflessness. David's grandfather- served in the Army, David's father served in World War II, and David followed in their footsteps and served in Vietnam. David, his father, and his father before him all received the Purple Heart. David gathers Purple Heart veterans together still and is a leader among these wounded warriors.

While David served as a firefighter for 25 years, he worked with his neighbors in the acequias. He knows the profound significance that these irrigation systems bring to our agriculture, culture, economy, and heritage. In fact, David became Mayordomo in 1970. He worked and managed the lifeblood of our communities for 40 years. He worked because of his endless spirit to help others and improve the place he called home--never even expecting to be paid for his work.

David embodies community. With everything he does, he promotes love, respect, selflessness, tradition, and kindness. There is no more perfect example of this than David's leadership in managing the acequia that brings so much value to every single member of the beautiful valley they call home.

Happy Birthday, David. As I often say: agua es vida y acequia es comunidad. You are the life of our community. But it doesn't start and end with only water. Thank you for your lifelong commitment to breathing so many different kinds of life into our beloved communities.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life of Jeffrey Mitchell. Elected officials, business leaders, community advocates, and New Mexicans from all walks of life looked to Jeff's leadership and broad expertise to build a better New Mexico.

Jeff was an economist and the Director of the Bureau of Business & Economic Research (BBER) at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. As head of BBER, Dr. Mitchell oversaw the economic forecasting for the entire state. He directed economic analysis and projections that assisted private businesses, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and cities, and towns. His regular presentations were followed closely by CEOs, political leaders, and community advocates. Jeff brought sharp insights, expert research, keen wit, and deep compassion to his leadership and policy roles. He believed firmly that economic analysis and community development should benefit the greater society and foster a broadly shared prosperity.

Jeff was also a community builder. He actively worked with nonprofits to promote renewable energy and sustainable development and was a policy advisor to 1000 Friends of New Mexico. He co-founded SHARE New Mexico, a comprehensive, web-based resource directory that ensures everyone similarly dedicated to improving our communities has the information they need. As an economist, he used numbers and math to perform his work, but most importantly he relied on his love for our beloved communities to guide it.

Jeff's passion for life and discovery cannot be distinguished from his professional accomplishments. As a young adult, Jeff hitchhiked across the United States and Central America with a book of philosophy in his backpack, curious to learn about these great lands and their peoples. He was a humanitarian from an early age, and he started his career working on housing and energy projects for low-income communities. He was a Fulbright scholar in Venezuela and traveled through every corner of New Mexico and the world, working and learning. It was that never-ending sense of curiosity that helped make Jeff's career--and life--so full.

Jeff especially loved the arts and cultures of New Mexico and was the lead author of a groundbreaking report that found that they contributed $5.6 billion to the state's economy and nearly 10 percent of its jobs. His work on this issue even helped inform legislation I introduced--the Creative Economy Revitalization Act--to create jobs and support our creative workers through the pandemic.

Jeff will be deeply missed by his friends, loved ones, and family. He left us too soon, and we will always remember him. Jeff's work, wisdom, and curious spirit will echo throughout New Mexico and across our country for generations to come. It is my honor to enshrine his contributions to our state, culture, and economy in history.

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 4. I stand in support of democracy. Earlier this month, the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, on which I

serve, released a report documenting voter suppression following the Shelby decision. We detailed the ongoing onslaught on our freedom to vote.

To those that claim that voting is already accessible to all, read the report, open your eyes to the experience of minority communities who face endless barriers to the ballot box.

After Latinos, Native Americans, and Black Americans voted in historic numbers, State legislators moved to restrict voting in State after State. We have a constitutional duty to act. We must pass H.R. 4 to restore the promise and power of the Voting Rights Act.

Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to join us. Taking away equal access to the polls and defending voter suppression is not partisan, it is un-American.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to call on the President, to call on the House, to call on the Senate to pass immigration reform. We hope to see immigration reform in reconciliation.

We are here to tell the stories of why we must do this, of why we must do this not just for the immigrant community, and not just because it is the right thing to do, and not just because of the stories of each of those families who put their lives on the line, who study, our DACA, our Dreamers, our essential workers, not just for each of them. We are calling for immigration reform because it is good for America.

And we must move beyond the rhetoric of division. We must move beyond the rhetoric of hate. And we must move to the facts. And when we move to those facts, we know and we learn that immigration reform is good for this country.

I often talk about the fact that we need to ignore those who would divide us. Those who would seek to demonize another for political gain. Because we know in New Mexico, especially, we know that there is no other, there is only an us. No hay un otro, solamente nosotros.

And when we look at some of these numbers, we recognize that. When we notice that immigration reform will bring a $1.7 trillion benefit to our economy, that it will raise annual wages for everybody by $700, that it would create 438,000 jobs for Americans, there is an economic reason for doing this beyond the sense of who we are, our humanity, and who we are as a Nation of immigrants.

This issue affects every community in our Nation. And it is so important in my own community that the first meeting I had after I was elected was with Somos Un Pueblo Unido. We Are a United Community. Somos Un Pueblo Unido.

And it was wonderful to have that meeting, because I heard directly the voices of my sisters who were undocumented. I heard their voices tell the story of what it was like to work, tell the story of what it was like to be exposed to COVID, but they knew they had to go back to work because they did not have a choice. Because they did not have any other way of providing for their children.

They put themselves in harm's way to care for us. They put themselves in harm's way to make sure that our grocery stores were stocked. They put themselves in harm's way to make sure that our elderly were cared for. They asked me a favor, they said, Senora Congresista, we ask that you will take our stories to Washington, D.C., that you will take our stories and use your voice there to repeat them. And so my voice right now is not mine, it is theirs.

Today, we stand in the people's House and use our voices to share the community stories, to highlight the benefits of immigration reform, and hopefully, hopefully, to get closer to making it a reality.

There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, they are the Dreamers who we have talked about. They are undocumented students, children, adults, who have only known this country as their home, they have U.S. citizen family members. As noted, they are caregivers, healthcare workers, education, and small business owners.

The immigrants in the United States are a reflection of us. They do the

things we do, they are doctors, they are lawyers, they are students, they are children. They are American. Just as American as any of us, and they each deserve an opportunity to reach their fullest potential.

And year after year after year immigration reform becomes a political football. Year after year after year 11 million people are held hostage by political games.

You know, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has advocated and fought for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants for years. It is one of our priorities that we get it passed. It is one of our priorities that we address immigration reform in the American Families Plan, in the American Jobs Plan.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been fighting this battle for decades--since they were formed. They have not given up. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus has not given up because we know that we must carry those voices and those voices must be all of our voices.

Let's talk a little bit about what happened during the pandemic. Immigrants carried us through the pandemic. While we stayed home, immigrant farm workers continued to go to work in the fields, risking their lives to keep our country fed. Undocumented essential workers in our grocery stores kept the shelves stocked with that food that was picked by the immigrant farm worker. Dreamers taught our youngest, they kept them engaged over that Zoom screen.

We saw how the pandemic, though, fueled the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes. But what else fueled that rise of hate? Anti-immigrant, racist, xenophobic rhetoric from the Trump administration. Asian Americans, despite those attacks that were leveled at them, they continued serving their communities, even in the face of those racist violent attacks.

And, yet, during the first round of stimulus checks, these immigrants, who we just described, who kept us going through the pandemic, they were left behind. They were made to feel like they were not part of our country, that they were not part of our recovery, and like they were an other.

I want to talk a bit more about the other immigrants.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman), to engage in this conversation about the role that immigrants play.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going to the border because it is only when we go to the border, but go to the border not with the intent to create a wedge issue but with an intent to listen and with intent to open our arms that we really see what is going on, the seeking of refuge. I went to the border with actually a bipartisan delegation surprisingly. It was wonderful. It was a bipartisan delegation.

It struck me. Meeting with those young children who are alone it struck me that the seeking of refuge and sending your child alone to a place that you believe is safe, Madam Speaker, is as old as the Bible itself. Remember, Madam Speaker, Moses' mother put her child in a basket and sent him down the Nile because that was the way to save his life. When we think of that, let's remember the tears and the pain in the heart of every parent who sets out on that journey to seek asylum; and let's remember that it is the law of this land; it is the law of the United States and of the world to allow asylum and to grant asylum when you fear for your lives.

What we have now is a broken system. Trump took a sledge hammer to it. But we must demand that it be put back together.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing his thoughts with the Nation today.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal). I thank the gentlewoman for serving as the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that allows us to have this conversation here today.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Jayapal, and I really do appreciate the Congressional Progressive Caucus' support for making sure that we include immigration reform in the reconciliation.

We can do that because it has a direct economic benefit to this country, and it has a direct economic benefit that will be reflected in the budget. And we support it.

But I think the other thing to remember is the country supports it. The support for doing immigration reform is huge. Sixty-seven percent of voters support the DREAM Act. Eighty-three percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for immigrant youth. Sixty-five percent of voters support citizenship for undocumented farmworkers.

It is something that the country supports because they understand that immigrants, they are us. They live with us and care for us and are us. Americans know that, and they support that.

So, then, we must ask, why are we not doing this? We will work on that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to tell us the stories and to raise her voice about the immigrant experience.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remember that they are not here just because we offer something more. Immigrants are here because we need them. We don't exist as a country without immigrants. They are here because they bring music and because they bring food and poetry and art and laughter. They bring community.

But they also bring incredible economic benefits. I talked earlier about the $1.7 trillion over 10 years, the 438,000 new jobs, the $700 in increased wages for everyone, the 6 years of additional life that we give Social Security. All of those are economic benefits.

Do we know that three-fourths of undocumented immigrants in the labor force are actually essential? That means they are the essential workers. Not just that. They are healthcare workers: 38 percent of the home healthcare aides caring for our loved ones at home, 29 percent of physicians, 23 percent of pharmacists. They are taking care of us. They are keeping us healthy.

Not only that. They are our entrepreneurs. They are the ones who are starting our businesses. Right now, 25 percent of new firms in America are opened by first-generation immigrants. The New American Economy reports that over 3 million immigrant entrepreneurs employ almost 8 million American workers across the Nation.

It is immigrants and the children of immigrants, who we have just heard, who come and serve in Congress, but they also start over half of all Fortune 500 companies. Yet, they are subject to the hatred that brought tears to my colleague's eyes. It is not right.

They are subject to that hatred in order to detract us from talking about what we need to talk about. What we need to talk about is, what we have been doing in this Congress when we passed the American Rescue Plan.

Instead of going back and being able to tell your communities that we passed the American Rescue Plan, help is on the way, we are going to be putting shots in arms, and we are going to get people back to work and kids back in schools--they don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about that border. That border is not threatening any of us, but that is what they want to talk about because they don't want to get to the work at hand.

But we are going to get to the work at hand, and we are going to push to include immigration in the reconciliation.

We heard earlier discussions about the manner in which families have been torn apart and separated at the border by the Trump administration. I have a bill that will not only reunify those families, but, as a mea culpa, as a way of saying we are sorry, we will make sure that they actually receive a visa and that they receive the kind of care that we must do whenever you traumatize a young child. They need that help.

We are also going to push to make sure that everyone who pays taxes receives the child tax credit. Those immigrant families are working, they are paying their taxes, and they were not getting the benefit of the child tax credit. We are going to make sure that we push for that and argue for that. We are going to make sure that we highlight who our immigrant brothers and sisters are, because they are us.

I want to remind us here today that back when this country was founded, even with all of its faults and flaws and original sins in how we started, that even back then, when our Founders talked about what this House should look like, they said that it should be a mirror, a portrait of America. They said that we should make sure that Congress has the right to pass the laws regarding how we vote us into office, because they did not trust those States. This was back at the founding. They did not trust those States because they knew that they would fight against having our House look like a miniature of the American people, a portrait.

That is the other thing that we are going to fight to do, to make sure that we get the voting rights in H.R. 1 passed and H.R. 4 passed, because that is how we also continue to push for immigration reform. We know America wants it. We talked about those polls, 83 percent, 67 percent. There is great, great support for that. It is only because we are not able to truly exercise our democratic values of self-governance that we have not yet passed it.

But we have this moment in reconciliation. We have this moment. It is a priority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It is a priority of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. It is a priority of so many of our colleagues. So I am incredibly hopeful.

I am looking forward to listening to the President's words, after a recent meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to tell us that he will also be supporting this.

We call upon the Senate to support immigration reform in the reconciliation act.

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

Madam Speaker, PFAS chemicals are life- threatening. They are forever chemicals and need to be cleaned up. We will act today to regulate these chemicals and protect public health.

Highland Dairy is a family-owned operation that has served the eastern part of my district for four generations. In 2018, Highland learned that PFAS from the nearby Air Force base leaked into the shared aquifer that watered the grass which fed the cows. The PFAS contamination poisoned the cows and the dairy could not sell the milk or the cows. Highland is on the brink of disaster merely by being a neighbor to the Air Force base. We cannot allow PFAS to work itself into our food system.

Madam Speaker, my amendment requires the EPA to consider the risk PFAS poses to water used for agricultural purposes, like that at Highland.

Madam Speaker, the EPA's work must be inclusive of farmers, rural America, and the food we eat. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to save Oak Flat. Oak Flat is a sacred land for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a land deserving of protection under our Historic Preservation Act.

The Resolution Copper Mine, a Chinese company, will completely destroy the sacred area and leave behind 1.4 billion tons of mine tailings waste and create a crater 1.8 miles long and 1,000 feet deep.

We have to ask ourselves, will we allow a foreign-owned mining company to create such destruction? Will we allow them to devastate a sacred land so they can export American natural resources to China for their profit?

No.

This project would use enormous amounts of water and will produce toxic waste that will destroy ecosystems in the area and change the landscape forever.

We must stand against foreign companies destroying traditional cultural landscapes. We should not grant China this competitive edge.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat Act, so we can protect this Tribal sacred area.

Mr. Speaker, I do welcome everybody in this Chamber to New Mexico, which is indeed one of the beautiful places that I get to call home. But you know what, New Mexico, my beautiful place I call home is also ground zero for the climate crisis.

The West is experiencing a devastating drought, coupled with damaging wildfires, and these are caused, undoubtedly, by the climate crisis we are experiencing. My beautiful State is also home to both the Permian and the San Juan Basins. And because of that, we also have some of the highest levels of methane pollution. We also have some of the highest levels of asthma rates among our beautiful children.

And every bit of methane that is released is wasted. It is wasted. It is a valuable resource that is released into the air by methane venting, through flaring, and simply because they have not maintained their sites.

But methane that is released and flared and leaked is also a resource upon which my State cannot collect severance taxes, upon which my State cannot collect royalties. And so when that methane is leaked and flared and vented, those same children who are suffering from those high asthma rates, they lose the resources that should go into our public education.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that my State--which needs every little nickel and dime, because we are a poor State, and which relies on those oil and gas revenues--what did we do? We recently enacted some of our own rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas activity, and these rules are now considered to be the best in the country.

If New Mexico can lead the way, we can follow it here in Congress, because taking action at the Federal level is reasonable, it is common sense.

As Don Schreiber, one of my constituents and a rancher in New Mexico who has those issues on his site says, ``New Mexicans built our oil and gas infrastructure, and these same communities can now design, manufacture, and install the technology to monitor and prevent methane emissions.''

Because you know what? Regulation spurs innovation, and we are looking forward to that innovation and those good jobs that will come from the methane regulation that we will have now when we overturn this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Senator Heinrich, for introducing and advancing this legislation in the Senate, and my great colleagues here, Representatives DeGette, Lamb, and Pallone for advancing and championing the cause of my wonderful children and students and State here on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to this body's attention that this resolution will actually put New Mexico on the same playing field as the rest of the country because, as I noted earlier, New Mexico has now adopted some of the strictest methane regulations in the country.

And those regulations, similar to what we are seeing now, were adopted in consultation and with the support of many in the oil and gas industry who participated in the rulemaking, who recognize that it is in their best interest to operate in a manner that is safe, in a manner that does not lose this precious resource. That is how we came to our regulations in New Mexico.

But we are at a disadvantage in New Mexico because, as it was noted earlier, if some States have nice, good regulations with regard to methane emissions and others don't, then in the Permian Basin, for example, what would stop a company from saying: I am going to drill in Texas and not in New Mexico because they are protecting our environment in New Mexico?

So what I look forward to seeing is having New Mexico be at the same place as the rest of the country, so that we are not losing our drilling to Texas, who doesn't have it. Mr. Speaker, I like the idea of everybody has the same set of rules.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with my Asian American and Pacific Islander brothers and sisters.

Asian Americans continue to experience violence, harassment, and discrimination. Across our country, our AAPI communities live in fear of being targets of deadly violence and racist slurs, simply because of who they are.

As we work to invest and rebuild our communities, we must make one thing clear: Hate and racism have no home here, not in our policies, and not in our hearts.

Yesterday, we passed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act to send to the President's desk. Today, we passed a resolution condemning the horrific shooting in Atlanta.

We are making progress, but we must never lose sight of the work that lies ahead to combat the hatred and violence against the AAPI community and root out racism against our brothers and sisters.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, we celebrated Mother's Day. Today, we act to protect mothers-to-be.

Every pregnant worker deserves the opportunity to support their family without risking the health of their pregnancy. Yet, pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, are often forced to choose between their health and a paycheck.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will correct these flaws in our system to ensure that pregnant women are treated fairly in the workplace.

Women carried the brunt of losses during the pandemic, losing a net 5.4 million jobs. We need to make it easier for them to get back to work, and that must include pregnant women.

I am proud that my home State of New Mexico passed legislation to protect pregnant workers, with bipartisan support, last year. It is time for Congress to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the ACLU in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

May 11, 2021.

Re Vote YES for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R.

1065).

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, and our more than 1.8 million members,

supporters, and activists, we write to express our support

for H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This

critical legislation would combat an all-too-common form of

pregnancy discrimination while also providing employers much-

needed clarity on their obligations under the law. We urge

all members of the House of Representatives to vote in favor

of this measured, bipartisan, and longoverdue legislation.

The ACLU has long fought to advance women's equality and

opportunity by challenging laws and policies that

discriminate against women in the workplace and by

dismantling the stereotypes that constrain women's full

engagement and participation at work. Although the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act has played a critical role over the past

40 years in securing women's place in the workforce, too many

women continue to be marginalized at work because of their

decision to become pregnant and have children. This kind of

discriminatory treatment has become most obvious when

pregnant workers--predominantly women in physically demanding

or male-dominated jobs, low-wage workers, and women of

color--request temporary accommodations to address a medical

need and instead are terminated or placed on unpaid leave,

causing devastating economic harm. The Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act would respond to this problem by requiring

employers with fifteen or more employees to provide

reasonable and temporary accommodations to pregnant workers

if doing so would not impose an undue hardship on the

business.

Pregnancy Discrimination, the PDA, and Young v. UPS, Inc.

Pregnancy and childbirth are often locus points for

discrimination against women in the workforce. Policies

excluding or forcing the discharge of pregnant women from the

workplace were common in the 1970s and reflected the

stereotype that a woman's primary or sole duties were to be a

homemaker and raise children. The adoption of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978, an amendment to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, established that

discrimination because of ``pregnancy, childbirth, and

related medical conditions'' was a form of discrimination

``because of sex.'' It was intended to dismantle the

stereotype, and the policies based on it, that viewed

pregnant women's labor force participation as contingent,

temporary, and dispensable without regard to their individual

capacity to do the job in question.

The PDA also required employers to treat pregnant workers

the same as other temporarily disabled workers because

Congress recognized that working women contributed to their

families' economic stability and should not have to choose

between a career and continuing a pregnancy. Despite the PDA,

pregnancy discrimination persists, and for many years courts

routinely ruled against workers who brought pregnancy

accommodation cases where they alleged discrimination when an

employer provided a job modification to an employee

temporarily unable to work but failed to do the same for a

pregnant worker.

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court

granted certiorari to resolve a split in the Circuits and for

the first time addressed the PDA's application in the context

of an employee who needed an accommodation due to pregnancy.

The Court concluded that the statute's mandate applied with

equal force in these circumstances and articulated a modified

analysis for failure-to-accommodate cases. The Court also

offered a new pretext analysis that plaintiffs may rely on

when litigating claims under the PDA's second clause. Since

Young, the reflexive approval of employer policies favoring

workers with occupational injuries has largely disappeared.

However, the bright-line deference to employer policies, and

the overbroad reading of such policies as ``pregnancy-

blind,'' has been replaced, in many instances, with an unduly

demanding standard for plaintiffs in making a showing of

differential treatment--even at the initial pleading stage,

prior to having the benefit of discovery. This trend

undermines Young's intent of demanding that employers justify

failures to accommodate pregnancy. Instead, they impose

unwarranted--and often insurmountable--burdens of proof on

pregnant workers that increasingly confer ``least favored

nation'' status on the protected trait of pregnancy. The

stories of clients the ACLU has represented--both as direct

counsel and as lead amicus--illustrate the harm:

Lochren v. Suffolk County: Sandra Lochren and five other

police officers sued the Suffolk County Police Department

(SCPD) for refusing to temporarily reassign pregnant officers

to deskwork and other non-patrol jobs, even though it did so

for officers injured on the job. But for those officers who

opted to keep working patrol, SCPD also failed to provide

bulletproof vests or gun belts that would fit

pregnant officers. Their only safe option was to go on

unpaid leave long before their due dates.

Cole v. SavaSeniorCare: When Jaimie Cole, a certified

nursing assistant, was in her third trimester, she developed

a high risk of preeclampsia, a condition that can lead to

preterm labor or even death. Her doctor advised her not to do

any heavy lifting. Cole's

job required her to regularly help patients in and out of bed

and assist with bathing, so she asked for a temporary light

duty assignment. Instead, her employer sent her home without

pay for the rest of her pregnancy.

Myers v. Hope Healthcare Center: Asia Myers, a certified

nursing assistant, experienced complications early in her

pregnancy and was told by her doctor that she could continue

to work, but should not do any lifting on the job. Although

her employer had a history of providing light duty to workers

with temporary lifting restrictions, Myers was told not to

return to work until her restrictions were lifted. She was

out of work for over a month with no income or health

insurance coverage.

Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa: Stephanie Hicks, a narcotics

investigator with the Tuscaloosa Police Department in

Alabama, wanted to breastfeed her new baby, but her

bulletproof vest was restrictive, painful, and prone to

causing infection in her breasts. She asked for a desk job

but her employer refused, even though it routinely granted

desk jobs to officers unable to fulfill all of their patrol

duties. Instead, it offered her an ill-fitting vest that put

her at risk.

Legg v. Ulster County: Corrections Officer Ann Marie Legg

was denied light duty during her pregnancy, even though

Ulster County gave such assignments to guards injured on the

job. In her third trimester, Legg had to intervene in a

fight, prompting her to go on leave rather than face future

risks.

Allen v. AT&T Mobility: Cynthia Allen lost her job because

she accumulated too many ``points'' under AT&T Mobility's

punitive attendance policy due to pregnancy-related symptoms

such as nausea. The policy makes accommodation for late

arrivals, early departures, and absences due to thirteen

enumerated reasons, some medical and some not, but none due

to pregnancy and pregnancy-related symptoms.

Durham v. Rural/ Metro Corp: Michelle Durham was an EMT in

Alabama whose job often required her to lift patients on

stretchers into an ambulance. When she became pregnant, her

health care provider imposed a restriction on heavy lifting.

Durham asked Rural/Metro for a temporary modified duty

assignment during her pregnancy, but was rejected, despite

the company's policy of giving such assignments to others.

She was told her only option was to take unpaid leave.

Why Congress Should Pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

It is indisputable that Young was an important step forward

to combat pregnancy discrimination. Yet, too many pregnant

workers continue to face insurmountable obstacles in HR

offices, where employers misunderstand their obligations

under the PDA, and in courtrooms across the country, where

judges use Young to hinder access to needed accommodations.

Despite the clear mandates of the PDA, the current legal

landscape leaves exposed and unprotected those pregnant

workers who want to continue working while maintaining a

healthy pregnancy.

Similarly, many pregnant workers have not found protection

or recourse under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

because absent complications, pregnancy is not considered a

disability that substantially limits a major life activity.

This legal reality means that many of the symptoms of a

normal pregnancy that can disrupt a worker's ability to do

her job--such as extreme fatigue, morning sickness, or

limitations on her mobility--are not entitled to

accommodation. Moreover, many pregnant workers seek

accommodation precisely because they wish to avoid the

conditions that might disable them or endanger their

pregnancy. Yet because the ADA is so expansive with respect

to other conditions that qualify as disabilities, the

population of non-pregnant workers entitled to reasonable

accommodation is exponentially larger than when the PDA was

enacted more than 40 years ago. Accordingly, without such

express entitlement to accommodation, pregnant workers face

an untenable ``least favored nation'' status in the

workplace.

The simple solution to this no-win situation is the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This legislation, modeled

after the ADA and using a framework familiar to most

employers, takes a thoughtful and measured approach to

balancing the needs of working people and employers by

requiring businesses with fifteen or more employees to

provide workers with temporary, reasonable accommodation for

known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or

related medical conditions if doing so would not place an

undue hardship on business. It also prohibits employers from

forcing a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence if a

reasonable accommodation can be provided; prevents employers

from denying job opportunities to an applicant or employee

because of the individual's need for a reasonable

accommodation; prevents an employer from forcing an applicant

or employee to accept a specific accommodation; and prohibits

retaliation against individuals who seek to use PWFA to

protect their rights.

At a time when women constitute nearly 60 percent of the

workforce and contribute significantly to their families'

economic well-being, passage of PWFA is a dire necessity.

When a pregnant worker is forced to quit, coerced into taking

unpaid leave, or fired because her employer refuses to

provide a temporary job modification, the economic impact can

be severe; if she is the sole or primary breadwinner for her

children, as nearly half of working women are, her entire

family will be without an income when they most need it. She

further may be denied unemployment benefits because she is

considered to have left her job voluntarily. She may have few

if any additional resources on which to rely. PWFA ensures

that women would not face such devastating consequences.

Instead, it treats pregnancy for what it is--a normal

condition of employment.

PWFA promotes women's health. Accommodations make a

difference in physically demanding jobs (requiring long

hours, standing, lifting heavy objects, etc.) where the risk

of preterm delivery and low birth weight are significant. The

failure to provide accommodations can be linked to

miscarriages and premature babies who suffer from a variety

of ailments. This bill would be an important contribution in

the fight to improve maternal health and mortality.

There is also a strong business case for PWFA. Providing

pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations increases

worker productivity, retention, and morale, and reduces

health care costs associated with pregnancy complications.

PWFA can also reduce litigation costs by providing greater

clarity regarding an employer's legal obligations to pregnant

workers. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that

PWFA would establish ``clear guidelines and a balanced

process that works for employers and employees alike.''

Additionally, a group of leading private sector employers

expressed their support for PWFA and noted ``women's labor

force participation is critical to the strength of our

companies, the growth of our economy and the financial

security of most modern families.''

Finally, 30 states across the political and ideological

spectrum have recognized the benefits of providing reasonable

accommodations to pregnant workers. Congress should ensure

that all pregnant workers, not just some, have the

protections they need.

It is time for Congress to act and pass the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely,

Ronald Newman,

National Political Director.

Gillian Thomas,

Senior Staff Attorney.

Vania Leveille,

Senior Legislative Counsel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor David Elliot from Taos, New Mexico. On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, President Biden delivered his first address to a Joint Session of Congress, 100 days into his first term.

When President Biden took the oath of office, he pledged that help was on the way. Thanks to our work together to enact the American Rescue Plan, help is finally here.

The hardworking people in New Mexico and all across the country have also shown us what true community looks like. David is one of those community heroes.

In a typical year, I would invite him to join me in the House Chamber for the Joint Address. COVID-19 safety protocols mean this year's in- person attendance will be limited and we will be watching from our beautiful New Mexico. But I did not want to miss this important opportunity to honor David.

David's commitment to serving others is inspiring. His work to bring people and organizations together to establish the Enchanted Circle of Community Organizations Active in Disaster is the embodiment of community. The Enchanted Circle COAD helped others in Taos, Colfax, Santa Fe counties and beyond. They have donated millions of dollars directly and in kind to their neighbors. During the initial phases of the COVID-19 response, David also served as the Deputy Director of the NM State Emergency Operations Center. His passion for emergency management has also led him to serve his community as a volunteer firefighter, volunteer Fire Chief, and as Emergency Management Coordinator for Taos and Santa Fe County.

David pointed out to me that he was honored to view this address as my guest on behalf of the countless New Mexicans, businesses, non- profits, and organizations who donated their time, effort, and money to help New Mexico recover during this extremely difficult time.

I'm proud to invite him as my virtual guest to the Presidential Address. He truly represents the best that New Mexico has to offer, and I thank him for his selflessness and life-saving work.

Madam Speaker, it has been 58 years since the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, yet still women don't earn equal pay for equal work.

In my district, women only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man earns. The wage gap is even wider for Latina, Black, and Native- American women.

This isn't simply a women's issue. This is a family issue. When women earn too little, their families are shortchanged, too.

This is a civil rights issue. When employers discriminate against a woman, they undermine justice for everyone.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will give women the tools we need to challenge sex-based pay discrimination. It will give employers the guidance they need to pay their employees what they deserve.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to step up. Let this be the year that we work together to pass this landmark bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Madam Speaker, I rise for every child who was ever raised in this beautiful country but told they are not American; for every Dreamer who has lived in fear that they will be forced from the only home they have ever known.

Madam Speaker, Dreamers are teachers, students, and healthcare workers. They feed us, care for us, and inspire us. They strengthen our economy. Now is the moment. We must give them the same opportunities and protections that they deserve as Americans.

Madam Speaker, in New Mexico, one in three women have experienced domestic violence. We must act swiftly to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The protections in this bill are a matter of life and death.

My State has one of the highest suicide rates. My amendment will help prevent suicide among survivors of sexual assault.

It also recognizes that our diverse communities must receive culturally relevant legal aid and outreach programs.

Let's work to end gender-based violence in all of our communities.

I thank Mrs. Lawrence so much for gathering us all here tonight in celebration, because celebration is what we must do. We must celebrate not just Women's History Month, but everything we did today. We must celebrate that we passed the extension of the ERA, that we passed the Violence Against Women Act, that we passed the American Rescue Plan with all of those wonderful provisions that will lift women and children out of poverty.

I come from a place where for many years they didn't give us the vote, they didn't give us statehood, and there was much discrimination. But it was also a place where women and women of color have a long and proud history of transformative leadership, and I honor a few of them today.

One hundred years ago the suffragist Adelina Otero-Warren helped lead the charge to ratify the 19th amendment in New Mexico. After her success, she became the first Latina to ever run for Congress. Unfortunately, she wasn't successful, but 100 years later I am the first Latina to represent my district.

In my family, my grandmother, Isabel Lopez Leger helped to integrate the segregated city of Las Vegas, New Mexico, refusing to move when the neighbors realized she was a small, Brown, Spanish-speaking Hispana.

My big grandma, as we called her Ganga, Abelina Romero Lucero, understood how central the vote was to achieving equity and representation for our communities, making calls to mobilize voters from her hospice bed. She was a Democrat until she died.

My mother, Manuelita de Atocha Lucero Leger, was punished for speaking Spanish in the schoolyard. She took this bigotry and turned it into advocacy, and she and my father helped pass the 1973 New Mexico Bilingual Multicultural Education Act because she knew that language was so essential to ``our culture and heritage,'' ``nuestra cultura y herencia,'' and identity.

New Mexico also claims Dolores Huerta, who proudly taught us that, ``yes, it can,'' ``si, se puede.''

I close with New Mexico's beloved daughter, Secretary Deb Haaland of the Pueblo of Laguna. New Mexico has shed tears of joy over her confirmation. She takes to the Department of the Interior a fierce voice borne of resilience and the love of community and our Earth which she inherited from the 34 generations of New Mexican women before her.

Women's history is still unfolding, for we have hard work ahead of us, don't we? Women of color, especially, are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, health disparities, and economic hardship. So I am so thankful to be here with my ``sisters,'' ``hermanas'' to celebrate our history and to recommit ourselves to the hard work we have ahead of us.