Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Employers know exactly what their responsibilities will be. But most importantly, women will have the certainty they can safely stay on the job. That is why 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodation laws similar to the PWFA and over 200 business, civil rights, health, and labor organizations support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from two of those organizations, A Better Balance and the National Women's Law Center. May 11, 2021. Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065). Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 1065). This legislation will ensure pregnant workers, particularly low-income workers and women of color, are not forced to choose between their paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. The bill will require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer, similar to the accommodation standard already in place for workers with disabilities. Forty-two years after the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnant workers still face rampant discrimination on the job and treatment as second-class citizens, as I explained in detail in my Congressional testimony before the House Education & Labor Committee in March 2021 and October 2019, as well as in A Better Balance's May 2019 report, Long Overdue. We urge you to support healthy pregnancies, protect pregnant workers' livelihoods, and end the systemic devaluation of women of color and vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal organization that advances justice for workers so they can care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing their economic security. Since our founding, we have seen day in and day out the injustices that pregnant workers continue to face because they need modest, temporary pregnancy accommodations and have led the movement at the federal, state, and local level to ensure pregnant workers can receive the accommodations they need to remain healthy and working. As I wrote in my 2012 Op-Ed in The New York Times ``Pregnant and Pushed Out of Job,'' which sparked the PWFA's introduction in Congress, ``[Gaps in our civil rights laws leave this enormous class without the right to the modest accommodations that would protect them.'' As a result, ``for many women, a choice between working under unhealthy conditions and not working is no choice at all.'' We founded A Better Balance 15 years ago because we recognized that a lack of fair and supportive work-family laws and policies--the ``care crisis''--was disproportionately harming women, especially Black and Latina mothers, in low-wage jobs. As I recently shared before Congress, ``This bias and inflexibility often kicks in when women become pregnant and then snowballs into lasting economic disadvantage. We call this the `pregnancy penalty'-- and since day one, A Better Balance has recognized it as a key barrier to gender equality in America.'' Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken with thousands of pregnant workers, disproportionately women of color, who have been fired or forced on to unpaid leave for needing accommodations, often stripping them of their health insurance when they need it most, driving them into poverty, and at times, even homelessness. Other women we have assisted were denied accommodations but needed to keep working to support themselves and their families and faced devastating health consequences, including miscarriage, preterm birth, birth complications, and other maternal health effects. In the past year alone, we have heard from women across the country who continue to face termination or are forced out for needing pregnancy accommodations, in situations often exacerbated by the pandemic and economic crisis. Tesia, a retail store employee from Missouri called us in 2020 after she was forced to quit her job because her employer refused to let her carry a water bottle on the retail floor even though she was experiencing severe dehydration due to hot temperatures in the store this summer. A massage therapist from Pennsylvania called us in June 2020 requesting to return to work on a part-time basis on the advice of her OB-GYN after experiencing cramping in her uterus. Her employer responded that they would not accommodate her and cut off all communication with her after that, forcing her out of work just three months before she was due to give birth. A nurse we spoke with from Pennsylvania who was six months pregnant requested to avoid assignment to the COVID-19 unit. Though her hospital was not overwhelmed by the pandemic at that time, had many empty beds, and other workers were being sent home, her employer refused her request and made heartless comments mocking her need for accommodation. She decided not to jeopardize her health and lost pay for missing those shifts as a result. She also worried about being called to the COVID unit shift constantly. Without the law on their side, these women had little legal recourse because they lived in a state without a state-level pregnant workers fairness law. Although the pandemic has shined a spotlight on these issues, the stories we heard in 2020 are in many ways similar to those we've been hearing for over a decade. ln 2012, Armanda Legros was forced out of her job at an armored truck company because her employer would not accommodate her lifting restriction. Without an income, she struggled to feed her newborn and young child. As she told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee in a hearing in 2014, ``Once my baby arrived just putting food on the table for him and my four-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to use water in his cereal at times because I could not afford milk.'' The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in place beyond the pandemic, until the law is passed. Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is the Solution Gaps in federal law, namely the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), mean many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without legal protection in states that do not have statewide PWFA protections. As we explained in our report Long Overdue, ``[w]hile the PDA bans pregnancy discrimination, it requires employers to make accommodations only if they accommodate other workers, or if an employee unearths evidence of discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers with disabilities, which can include some pregnancy-related disabilities. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability, leaving a gap wherein many employers are in no way obligated to accommodate pregnant workers in need of immediate relief to stay healthy and on the job.'' Original analysis we conducted for Long Overdue found that even though the 2015 Supreme Court Young v. UPS case set a new legal standard for evaluating pregnancy accommodation cases under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in two-thirds of cases decided since Young, employers were permitted to deny pregnant workers accommodations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As I shared in my recent testimony, women are continuing to lose their cases because of this uniquely burdensome standard. That statistic, as devastating as it is, does not account for the vast majority of pregnant workers who do not have the resources to vindicate their rights in court. Beyond being resource strapped, most pregnant workers we hear from do not have the desire to engage in time-consuming and stressful litigation. They want to be able to receive an accommodation so they can continue working at the jobs they care about while maintaining a healthy pregnancy. The Americans with Disabilities Act is also inadequate for pregnant workers for two reasons. First, because pregnancy is not itself a disability under current disability law, a pregnant worker who has no complications but seeks an accommodation in order to avoid a complication, will not be able to get an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Second, even though Congress expanded the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2008, courts have interpreted the ADA Amendments Act in a way that did little to expand coverage even for those pregnant workers with serious health complications. As one court concluded in 2018, ``Although the 2008 amendments broadened the ADA 's definition of disability, these changes only have had a modest impact when applied to pregnancy-related conditions.'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security, Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure Pregnant workers who are fired or forced on to unpaid leave for needing accommodations face significant economic hardship. In addition to losing their livelihood, many of these workers lose their health benefits at a time when they need them most, forcing them to switch providers, delay medical care, or face staggering health care costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Many workers must use up saved paid or unpaid leave they had hoped to reserve to recover from childbirth. We worked with one woman who was eight months pregnant and whose hours were cut after she needed an accommodation which meant she also lost her health insurance. As a result, she asked her doctor if they could induce her labor early, despite the health risks in doing so, so that she would not be left facing exorbitant medical bills. In the long term, being pushed out for needing pregnancy accommodations also exacerbates the gender wage gap, as it means not only a loss of pay, but also losing out on many types of benefits such as 401K and retirement contributions, social security contributions, pensions, as well as opportunities for promotion and growth. To be clear, most pregnant workers may not need accommodations. However, for those who do, reasonable accommodations can avert significant health risks. For instance, in a Health Impact Assessment of state level pregnant workers fairness legislation, the Louisville, Kentucky Department of Public Health and Wellness concluded, ``Accommodating pregnant workers, upon their request, is critical for reducing poor health outcomes . . . Improving birth outcomes makes a sustainable impact for a lifetime of better health.'' The report noted that those poor health outcomes can include miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, preeclampsia (a serious condition and leading cause of maternal mortality), among other issues. According to the March of Dimes, in the U.S., nearly 1 in 10 babies are born pre-term and the preterm birth rate among Black women is nearly fifty percent higher than it is for all other women. Preterm birth/low birthweight is a leading cause of infant mortality in America. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a key measure to reduce poor maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnancy accommodations are also a key solution, among many, needed to address the Black maternal and infant health crisis. Systemic racism has led to the shameful reality that Black women in this country are three to four times likelier to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and Black babies are more than two times as likely to die in the first year of life than white babies. At the same time, we know Black women also face devastating health consequences when they are unable to obtain needed pregnancy accommodations to maintain their health and the health of their pregnancies. When Tasha Mureil, a Black woman who worked at a warehouse in Tennessee, received a doctor's note saying she needed a lifting restriction and complained of extreme stomach pain, she was forced to continue lifting on the job. One day, she told a supervisor she was in pain and asked to leave early. Her manager said no. Tragically, she had a miscarriage the next day. Tasha was not alone. Three more of her coworkers, also Black, miscarried after supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based SisterReach, explained ``It doesn't surprise me that this is the culture of that workplace. I think it's important to look at the fact that since we arrived here in chains, we [Black women] were regarded as producers to fuel a labor force that couldn't care less for us . . .'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure pregnant workers and their health are valued and that Black mothers, especially, are not treated as expendable on the job. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Bipartisan Bill That Has the Support of This Country's Largest Business Groups The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is not a partisan bill. Not only does it have strong bipartisan support in Congress, but thirty states and five cities including Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska, and Utah already have laws requiring employers to provide accommodations for pregnant employees. All of the laws passed in recent years are highly similar to the federal legislation, and all passed with bipartisan, and often unanimous, support.'' Many, including Tennessee's and Kentucky's, were championed by Republican legislators. Pregnant workers are a vital part of our economy. Three- quarters of women will be both pregnant and employed at some point during their lives'' Ensuring pregnant workers can remain healthy and attached to the workforce is an issue of critical importance, especially as this country faces a devastating economic crisis. That is why leading business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Society for Human Resources Management, many major corporations, and local chambers around the country including, Greater Louisville Inc., one of Kentucky's leading chambers of commerce, support this measure. The PWFA will provide much needed clarity in the law which will lead to informal and upfront resolutions between employers and employees and help prevent problems before they start. Furthermore, accommodations are short term and low cost. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help employers retain valuable employees and reduce high turnover and training costs. The reasonable accommodation framework is also borrowed from the American with Disabilities Act framework so employers are already familiar with the standard. Furthermore, keeping pregnant workers employed saves taxpayers money in the form of unemployment insurance and other public benefits. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Uses a Familiar Framework That Provides Key Protections to Pregnant Workers and Clarity to Employers The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has several key provisions that will address the inequality pregnant workers continue to face at work. Employers, including private employers with fifteen or more employees, will be required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees absent undue hardship on the employer. Both the term ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' have the same definition as outlined in the American with Disabilities Act. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers and employees will engage in an interactive process in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. In order to prevent employers from pushing pregnant employees out on leave when they need an accommodation, the bill specifies that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided. The bill also includes clear anti-retaliation language such that employers cannot punish pregnant workers for requesting or using an accommodation. This is critical as many pregnant workers often do not ask for accommodations because they are afraid they will face repercussions for requesting or needing an accommodation. Critically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is also very clear that a pregnant worker need not have a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to merit accommodations under the law. Rather, the bill indicates that pregnant workers with ``known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions'' are entitled to reasonable accommodations. ``Known limitations'' is defined as a ``physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the employee or employee's representative has communicated to the employer whether or not such condition meets the definition of disability'' as set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act. This addresses the two challenges with the ADA outlined above. Now, more than ever, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is an urgent maternal health, racial justice, and economic security measure to keep pregnant workers healthy and earning a paycheck. We cannot delay justice and fairness for pregnant workers any longer. For the sake of this country's pregnant workers and our nation's families, we implore Congress to put aside its many differences and pass this legislation with a strong bipartisan vote. We ask every Member of Congress to vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It is long overdue. Sincerely, Dina Bakst, Co-Founder & Co-President, A Better Balance.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, that is why, last Congress, the House passed identical legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. But as the economy reopens, the problem persists. The House must act again to pass this bill, and the Senate must take it up. Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam 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. 1573.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021, is an important bill that will ensure that individuals who seek to lawfully enter the United States can contact a family member or an adviser if they are held for an extended period at a port of entry. Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore President Trump's Muslim ban and the chaos that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first announced. I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents were detained for hours and were prevented from speaking with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable to call their family. Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is, unfortunately, a problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of U.S. immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak to them, even if they can provide critical information or correct the legal error. Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused admission. Some have argued that this bill will require CBP to expend significant resources, but I believe they fundamentally misunderstand the substance of the bill. To be clear, H.R. 1573 does not provide a right to counsel, nor does it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to build any additional space to accommodate counsel or hire new staff, nor to pay for counsel. The bill simply ensures that no one who presents themselves at a port of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the world during the inspection process. It allows those seeking admission, including U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than 1 hour. The bill specifically contemplates that this could be accomplished telephonically. It is absurd to claim that providing these individuals with the opportunity to call their families or an attorney and potentially receive their assistance during the inspection process will consume significant CBP resources. Madam Speaker, I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for championing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is the chairwoman of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 1573) to clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1333.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1333, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or NO BAN Act, is an important step toward reining in executive overreach and preserving the power of Congress to establish our Nation's immigration laws. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA, authorizes the President to suspend the entry of noncitizens when the President finds that their entry would be detrimental to U.S. interests. From 1952, when this provision was enacted, until January 2017, Presidents of both parties invoked section 212(f) to exclude only narrow groups of individuals, such as human rights violators, North Korean officials, and individuals seeking to overthrow governments, for reasons that would clearly serve the national interest. But former President Trump abused this authority, twisting it in ways that were never intended. He first used it to deliver on his campaign promise to ban Muslims from the United States, an immoral and disastrous policy that traumatized children and families and made us no safer, while weakening our standing in the world. The former President then used this section to rewrite immigration laws with which he disagreed. For example, the INA expressly provides asylum eligibility to any individual who arrives in the United States ``whether or not at a designated port of arrival.'' However, President Trump invoked section 212(f) to deny asylum to persons who cross the southern border between ports of entry, in direct conflict with the statute. Fortunately, the judiciary agreed that this was unlawful and stopped the policy from taking effect. H.R. 1333 will prevent such executive overreach by amending section 212(f) to ensure it is used in a manner consistent with its intended purpose and historical norms. Although President Biden has repealed the egregious orders of the Trump era, including the Muslim ban, we must pass the NO BAN Act to ensure that this authority is never abused again. In advancing this legislation today, we uphold our Nation's founding ideals and reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law. This should not be a partisan issue. Members on both sides of the aisle should agree that no President, Republican or Democratic, should be permitted to usurp the powers of the legislative branch enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of powers is fundamental to our democratic Republic, and it must be protected. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Judy Chu, for her leadership and her steadfast commitment to this issue. Her efforts led to the introduction of the NO BAN Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 1333) to transfer and limit Executive Branch authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the author of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairperson of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).