Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have long supported protections in Federal law for all workers, including pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, empowering them to achieve their highest potential.

I speak not only as a concerned Congresswoman on this issue but also as a mother and grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination.

That is why I support meaningful protections under Federal law to prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that rightfully protect pregnant workers.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples. These Federal laws already ensure workers are not being discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

I agree with the underlying principle of H.R. 1065 and appreciate the bipartisan negotiations that took place during the 116th Congress to get this bill to where it is today. And I am pleased to see the changes we negotiated last Congress were incorporated in the legislative text this time around.

When the bill was introduced last Congress, it did not require that a pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill.

A definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially omitted. The bill now includes such a definition, including a requirement that employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities.

Additionally, the bill introduced last Congress appeared to allow employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations. However, the bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be determined through a balanced and interactive dialogue between workers and employers.

The bill introduced last Congress also did not include the limitation on applicability to employers with 15 or more employees, as is the case in title VII of the Civil Rights Act and title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it now includes the 15-employee threshold.

Finally, the bill now includes a provision that if an employer makes a good faith effort to determine a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process with the employee, the employer is not liable for damages.

Unfortunately, there is one key provision missing from this bill. One of the core tenets of the Constitution is the guarantee of religious freedom. In fact, it is the first freedom mentioned in the Constitution.

For the last 240 years, the Supreme Court has upheld that principle in its decisions, and laws written by Congress have maintained strong protections for religious liberty. Yet, the bill we are discussing today deals an unnecessary blow to religious organizations, potentially forcing them to make hiring decisions that conflict with their faith.

Our job in the people's House is not to defy the Constitution, but to uphold it. No employer should have to choose between abiding by the law and adhering to their religious beliefs.

That is why Republicans offered an amendment in committee that would include a narrow but longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that is not currently incorporated in this bill. Committee Democrats voted down this commonsense amendment.

I also submitted the same amendment to the Rules Committee so that it could be debated today, but the Democrats prevented me from offering it. As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of this legislation.

I want to reiterate that I am pleased with the bipartisan negotiations that took place on H.R. 1065. When we work together, we can effect real change. But I will never support any bill that infringes on the Constitution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Taking away rights from our citizens is not a win for the American people; it is a win for Big Government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim it is not necessary to incorporate the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act in H.R. 1065 because the bill does not repeal that provision and it will still be effective if the bill becomes law. I strongly disagree.

H.R. 1065 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act provision in H.R. 1065?

At worst, the provision would be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers.

Let's remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, better known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has caused no harm.

My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 1065 are saying the quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I have reached this conclusion because Democrats have also claimed that the Civil Rights Act provision is overinclusive, to begin with, and would provide too much protection in this instance.

Are Democrats saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for religious organizations should also be repealed?

Again, this is a provision that has been law for 56 years.

As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 1065. At worst, it would do no harm. At best, it will prevent religious organizations from being required to violate their faith.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in their statements supporting H.R. 1065, Democrat Members have encouraged the House to follow the examples of States that have enacted pregnancy accommodation laws. However, the majority of these States have laws that include important protections for religious organizations.

At least 15 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy discrimination, or pregnancy accommodation laws, that include a religious organization protection similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. The States include Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Kentucky's pregnancy accommodation law, which was highlighted by a Democrat-invited witness at a hearing on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as a successful workable solution, includes a limited religious organization protection very similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, the bill before us today omits this needed provision.

If we are to follow the example of these States and recommendations from congressional testimony, then a provision protecting religious organizations should be added to H.R. 1065.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce worked with the Education and Labor Committee to make improvements to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. However, the Chamber does have few, if any, religious organizations as members. Therefore, it is understandable they would not take the position on protections for these organizations.

As Members of Congress, we should ensure that the legislation we consider is fair to all and does not infringe on fundamental rights.

The religious organization protection that I am advocating, which comes from the Civil Rights Act, will ensure religious organizations are not compelled to make decisions that violate their faith.

H.R. 1065 should include the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act, which would not detract from any of the provisions included in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, being able to bear children is a great gift, and I am very pleased that God gave me that opportunity.

I would like to address the claim that the Civil Rights Act's protection for religious organizations is not needed in H.R. 1065 because these employers could raise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, as a defense to a lawsuit.

However, RFRA does not provide the same protections for religious organizations as the Civil Rights Act. In fact, RFRA's provisions are much narrower than the protection for religious organizations in the Civil Rights Act.

Moreover, RFRA defenses are difficult to win in court. Indeed, more than 80 percent of the time, courts rule in favor of the government and against the person seeking protection under RFRA.

The claim that the Civil Rights Act's longstanding religious organization protection does not need to be incorporated in H.R. 1065 because of RFRA is not persuasive. Indeed, the protection should be added to the bill to ensure it does not infringe on religious freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee just said that this is going to stop the patchwork of laws related to this issue.

Au contraire, Mr. Chairman. This is going to add to the confusion, which is the point I have been making over and over and over again. Simple addition of the reference to the Civil Rights Act would keep us from adding to the patchwork of laws and the confusion that this bill is going to create. And I am sorely disappointed that we could not work out this last little accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans will not stand for discrimination of any kind. As a mother, a grandmother, and a very strong pro-life advocate, workplace protections for pregnant women are particularly important to me. My Republican colleagues and I have long been committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to achieve success, and this includes current protections in Federal law for pregnant workers.

While meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to H.R. 1065, it falls short in protecting one of the Nation's most treasured rights: Freedom of religion.

Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense, current-law provision that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith is shortsighted and disappointing. Congress should not be in the business of taking away rights from the American people.

In fact, as we all know, the Constitution starts with the three most important words outside the Bible: We the People.

And then in the First Amendment to the Constitution--and I want to jog the memories of my colleagues--the Constitution enshrines the right of religious freedom by saying: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion''--and this is very important, the next part--``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

That is what we are talking about here today. We are talking about the free exercise of religion. I will say again: Congress should not be in the business of attempting to take away rights from the American people. The Constitution does not give us that right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source