Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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 include extraneous material on H. Res. 908.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 908, a resolution condemning all forms of anti-Asian sentiment as related to COVID-19. Among other things, the resolution, introduced by my colleague from New York, Representative Grace Meng, calls upon all public officials to condemn and denounce anti-Asian sentiment, and it calls on Federal law enforcement officials to investigate and document all credible reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans, to collect data on the rise of hate crimes incidents due to COVID-19, and to hold perpetrators accountable. The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing crisis for our country. Over 6.6 million Americans have been infected, and almost 200,000 have died from COVID-19. It has upended the lives of almost every American in some way, and it will continue to do so for some time as we brace for a potential second wave of infections. On top of bearing the burdens that the pandemic has imposed on all Americans, Asian Americans have been forced to carry the added anxiety of confronting racial prejudice, including racially motivated harassment and violence stemming from the stigma that has unfairly associated them with COVID-19 because of the virus' origin in China, a stigma that has been reinforced by rhetoric suggesting such a link. According to the Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council, since March 19, there have been almost 2,600 cases of anti-Asian discrimination related to COVID-19. According to the resolution, at the pandemic's earliest stage in this country, between February 9 and March 7, there were over 400 such incidents. These include the stabbings of an Asian-American father and two young children, ages 2 and 6, in Texas. Public health entities, including the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have recognized that labeling a virus by geographic or ethnic terms unfairly stigmatizes certain communities and ultimately harms public health. For this reason, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar rightly condemned the use of the phrase ``Chinese virus'' in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, stating that: ``Ethnicity it is not what causes the novel coronavirus.'' It is incumbent on all public figures, including elected officials like us, to publicly condemn bigotry and the stigmatization of racial or ethnic groups unfairly targeted for blame. We must speak out clearly against such attitudes and acts of hate whenever they occur, but particularly in the face of public panic or fear during a national emergency, when society can be especially vulnerable to racist appeals and prejudices. While many public figures have admirably sought to end COVID-19- related animosity, some, unfortunately, appear not to share the same sense of moral duty. Rather than using their bully pulpits to confront prejudice and racial hatred, they have instead chosen repeatedly to use derogatory and prejudicial phrases and remarks, reinforcing the exclusion and stigmatization of Asian Americans in the face of a national crisis, a tactic that sadly has a long and ugly history in our country. Left unchecked, this type of rhetoric has, in the past, led to grave injustices like the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In the year 2020, condemning bigotry and racial scapegoating should not be hard for any Member of this House to do. It is long past time to leave the days of yellow peril hysteria and unjustified blame of the other behind. The House can take an important step in that direction by passing H. Res. 908 unanimously. I urge strong support for this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for a question.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the import of this resolution could not be more clear. Anti-Asian sentiment will not be tolerated. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Discrimination against anyone will not be tolerated. When language comes consistently from the White House, from other places that stoke anti-Asian sentiment, that stoke racism, this cannot be tolerated. And this House must declare that we will not tolerate it. This House must be on record against the use of language designed to stoke racism, against the use of language designed to pick out a particular ethnic group--in this case Asians, but it is the same as if it picked out a different ethnic group. No ethnic group should be the target of such obloquy, of such racism, of such opposition from the White House. None. It is unconscionable that we have to stand here and oppose the White House stoking anti-Asian sentiment. It is unconscionable that the White House would do such a thing. But if it does such a thing, then it is incumbent on this House to denounce it. It is incumbent on this House to make sure that the American people know that we do not stand with anyone, whether in the White House or anyplace else, who stokes deliberately anti-Asian sentiment. We cannot abide, we must not abide, the use of public office, the use of public facilities, the use of the public microphone to stoke anti- Asian sentiment, no more than we would tolerate it if it were stoking anti-Black sentiment or anti-Semitic sentiment. None of this is tolerable. We must not permit this. So, I say again, it cannot be allowed that, on the floor of this House, we do not denounce the use of public resources, the use of the White House, the use of public resources to stoke anti-Asian sentiment.

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 gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pregnancy is not a disability, but sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an extra bathroom break, to stay on the job. These accommodations are short in duration and typically cost very little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping your job or putting your pregnancy at risk. But for as long as women have been in the workforce, instead of being accommodated, they have been fired or forced out on leave when they become pregnant. These policies have become even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have seen a wave of employers firing pregnant workers rather than finding ways for them to safely return to work. These policies, as they too often do, are falling disproportionately on women of color and low-wage, hourly workers who suddenly find themselves without a paycheck, without health insurance, and pregnant in the middle of a global pandemic. The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will fix how pregnancy accommodation is treated under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Courts have said that employers must provide an accommodation to a pregnant employee if they accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in their inability or ability to work. That means pregnant workers must have perfect knowledge of the medical and employment histories of every other employee in their workplace, which is nearly impossible. In fact, a recent study by A Better Balance found that in over two- thirds of cases, courts denied an accommodation because pregnant workers could not meet this test. I include in the Record a letter in support of this bill from A Better Balance. September 11, 2020. Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694). Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 2694). 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. Nearly 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 Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee in October 2019 as well as 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 and NO on any Motion to Recommit in connection with this legislation. A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal organization that advocates for women and families so they can care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing their financial 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, ``For many women, a choice between working under unhealthy conditions and not working is no choice at all.'' Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken with hundreds of pregnant workers, disproportionately women of color, who have been fired or forced out 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 few months alone, we have heard from women across the country who continue to face termination or are forced out for needing pregnancy accommodations. A retail store employee from Missouri who is pregnant and due in November 2020 called us 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, 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. On the other hand, when a pregnant worker in upstate New York--where a state pregnancy accommodation is already in place--requested to telecommute in June 2020 due to underlying health issues, she was quickly able to engage her employer in a good faith interactive process and her employer approved her request, allowing her to stay attached to the workforce and maintain a healthy pregnancy amidst the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly shone a spotlight on the critical need for clarity around pregnancy accommodations but let us be clear: the need for this law preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in place beyond the pandemic. Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is the Solution Gaps in federal law mean many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without legal protection in non-PWFA states. As we explained in our report Long Overdue, ``While the P[regnancy] D[iscrimination] A[ct] 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 over two- thirds of cases decided since Young employers were permitted to deny pregnancy workers accommodations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 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 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security, Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure Pregnant workers that are fired or pushed out 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, and/or face staggering health care costs associated with pregnancy and 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 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 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. 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 one of myriad solutions needed to address the Black maternal 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 Murell, 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 co-workers, also Black, miscarried after supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based Sister Reach, 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 [African-American 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 an unprecedented 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 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 must 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 two of the challenges the Americans with Disabilities Act has presented for pregnant workers: 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.'' 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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Delivering for America Act (H.R. 8015), which would restore normal U.S. Postal Service (USPS) operations and prohibit the Trump Administration from implementing or approving any changes that would impede service during the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill also provides $25 billion in emergency funding, matching the level requested by the bipartisan Board of Governors, and which the House passed as part of the Heroes Act in May. For over two and a half centuries, our nation's Postal Service has stood as an independent, neutral entity focused solely on connecting Americans and providing essential services. This independence has allowed the Postal Service to maintain its status as the country's most trusted government agency for decades. Over the past several weeks, the Trump Administration has turned the Postal Service into an instrument of partisan politics by enabling Postmaster General DeJoy to implement harmful and unprecedented operational and service changes at the Postal Service, such as reducing overtime, restricting deliveries, and eliminating sorting machines and mailboxes. These actions have resulted in unacceptable wait times for mail across the country, delaying timely delivery of prescription medication and other vital mail, and endangering our upcoming election. Following heavy criticism, the Postmaster General issued a wholly insufficient and misleading pause in operational changes. But it is now clear after his testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, that he has no intention of taking meaningful action to reverse the damage that the Postmaster General's sweeping changes have inflicted. Additionally, the pause does nothing to ensure voters that their election ballots will be delivered in time if they mail their ballots account to their state's deadlines. Finally, the pause is only temporary, and the damaging changes are set to return after the election. Two weeks ago, I called for the Postmaster General to resign. Today, I repeat that call and stand firm that he must step down. The Trump Administration's efforts to sabotage the Postal Service have endangered the lives and livelihoods of millions who rely on the USPS for essential services like delivering life-saving medications, medical equipment, Social Security benefits and paychecks. The Postmaster General's decision to impose these dangerous changes in the middle of an ongoing pandemic has magnified the disruption of many of these vital services. The use of mail-order prescriptions, for instance, has increased by 20 percent during the pandemic. Due to the degradation of service, mail-order medications are reportedly taking weeks to be delivered, forcing patients to skip doses of life-saving medicines. Veterans throughout the country have reportedly faced wait times of three weeks or more for mail-order medications, which has left the Department of Veterans Affairs scrambling to find alternative delivery services. Stopping these changes and reversing the damage already done is not enough. We must provide the additional funding in this bill to ensure services continue uninterrupted through the election and the pandemic. But in the President's own words, he opposes any emergency funding because he believes that without it, the Postal Service will not be able to handle the estimated influx of mail-in ballots in the upcoming general election. The President himself has voted by mail in the last three elections but continues to attack mail-in voting as rife with fraud. In reality, voting fraud of all forms is extremely rare, and that's especially true with mail-in voting, whose fraud rates are immeasurably small. Oregon, the first state to expand mail-in ballots to general elections, has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, and has documented less than a dozen cases of fraud. With the number of Americans voting by mail for the election expected to more than double from the last due to the pandemic, Congress must protect the right of every American to vote. If Congress fails to act, we risk permanent damage to the integrity of our elections and our government institutions; we risk the livelihoods of farmers and workers around this country who rely on the USPS; and we risk the health and lives of our seniors, veterans, and millions of other patients who rely on mail-order medications during a pandemic that has now claimed the lives of nearly 175,000 people in the U.S. Finally, we risk the disenfranchisement of seniors and other higher-risk individuals whose safest option is casting mail-in ballots. Protecting the integrity of the Postal Service should never be a partisan issue. Congress must pass the Delivering for America Act, and work quickly to reverse the substantial damage inflicted by the Trump Administration. I urge my colleagues to vote Yay and the Senate to take up this bill immediately.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), the sponsor of the bill.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I find it extremely disingenuous to deny the nature of the Muslim ban. You know why? Because the President told us so. He told us he was going to institute a Muslim ban, and then he did it. And every country he put on the list was Muslim. Every country he has added to the list was Muslim. Only Muslims and Muslim countries pose threats to the United States of any nature; no one else in the world does? How stupid does he think we are? This is a Muslim ban. It has been. It is an abuse of his office. It is an abuse of the law. It must be repealed. The honor of the United States must be redeemed. And that is why this dishonorable, hateful policy must be repealed. And that is why we must vote for this bill, to redeem the honor of the United States from the disgusting religious bigotry supported by the President and instituted by the President in this ban. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.