[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7049-S7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4431--Continued

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here today because no one should 
have to choose between their job and a healthy pregnancy.
  It is outrageous that pregnant women in our country have been pushed 
out of their jobs by their employers because, as you just heard, they 
asked for an additional bathroom break or because their doctors say 
they need to avoid heavy lifting or because their employer can't be 
bothered to simply provide them a stool to sit down on.
  It is unconscionable that people who are looking forward to welcoming 
a new family member are having their lives upturned or losing the 
paychecks they depend on to make rent or buy groceries or pay for 
childcare, all because their employers refuse to provide basic, 
commonsense, low-cost and even no-cost accommodations. We have got to 
do better.
  That is why I am here with Senator Casey, who has been a relentless 
champion on this issue, to urge all of my colleagues to let us pass the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is a bipartisan bill that will 
make sure that no one is forced to choose between a job and a healthy 
pregnancy and everyone can get the reasonable workplace accommodations 
they need when they are pregnant.
  Let me be clear: This is, fundamentally, a bipartisan bill that we 
have worked closely with our Republican colleagues on. Senator Cassidy 
coleads this bill. He has been an amazing partner. It passed out of the 
HELP Committee overwhelmingly. It is supported by my ranking member 
Senator Burr, and it passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan House vote.
  There is no reason to stand in the way. We can send this to the 
President's desk right now.
  We are really not here asking for much. This is very simple. Give 
pregnant workers a break, give them a seat, and give them a hand. Give 
them the dignity, the respect, and basic workplace accommodations that 
they need.
  This is way overdue, and I can't think of a more commonsense, less 
controversial bill, and I hope that we can get it done today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I just want to add parenthetically before I 
offer the unanimous consent request--Senator Murray made reference to 
the overwhelming support. This bill, when it comes to a final vote, 
will have at least 60 votes in the Senate, if not more. I think it will 
be more than that.
  But we should also note the passage in the House that Senator Murray 
made reference to, better than 3-to-1, 315 to 101, more than 75 percent 
of House Members support it--obviously bipartisan.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation 
with the Republican leader, that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 425, S. 4431; further, that there be up 
to 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, and that the only amendments in order be No. 1, Lee, and No. 
2, Braun; further, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed with a 60 affirmative 
vote threshold required for adoption; and that following the 
disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with a 60 
vote affirmative threshold required for passage without further 
intervening action or debate. Finally, that there be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I have to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, for his efforts to ensure that pregnant women have access 
to accommodations--reasonable accommodations at work. They need to have 
healthy pregnancies.
  As the husband of a wife who had two children while she was working 
and a grandfather of two grandchildren with a daughter who is a nurse, 
I absolutely want to make sure that those reasonable accommodations are 
accounted for.
  However, in its current form, this legislation before us would give 
Federal bureaucrats at the EEOC authority to mandate that employers 
nationwide provide accommodations such as leave to obtain abortions on 
demand under the guise of a pregnancy-related condition. Worse still, 
the legislation would subject pro-life organizations, including 
churches and religious organizations, to potentially crippling lawsuits 
if they refuse to facilitate abortions in direct violation of their 
religious beliefs and their moral convictions.
  Unlike title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, this 
legislation contains no exemptions for religious organizations.
  I and a number of other people do not believe that abortion is 
healthcare. I believe it is a brutal procedure that destroys an 
innocent child.
  The Federal Government should not be promoting abortion, let alone 
mandating that pro-life employers and employers in States that protect 
life facilitate abortion-on-demand.
  I hope that we can work together on this legislation and amend it to 
address those concerns so that all the reasonable accommodations they 
worked so hard to achieve can be passed and can gain my support and the 
support of other colleagues. But until such time, sir, I have to 
object; and on behalf of Senator Lankford, Senator Daines, and myself, 
I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

[[Page S7050]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I regret that my colleague has objected 
to this bill, but I reject the characterization that this would do 
anything to promote abortion.
  But it is probably not important what I think. I will quote the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops. Last night, they said--and this is the 
Catholic bishops:

       We believe that [this] version of the bill, read in light 
     of existing liberty protections, helps advance the [U.S. 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops'] goal of ensuring that no 
     woman ever feels forced to choose between her future and the 
     life of her child while protecting the conscience rights and 
     religious freedoms of employers.

  This is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night.
  And I think as a physician, I can now speak. As a physician, I will 
say that there are times when a woman, if she wishes to continue in the 
workforce, needs an accommodation.
  The Louisville police officer who was quoted in a Cincinnati paper 
spoke about her need for light accommodation; but those who were 
ultimately her boss would not give it to her because she was not 
``injured.'' So they have a policy in which if you need it and on a 
doctor's order you should, unless it was a doctor's order because of 
pregnancy. And she was told that if she sought to use that, she would 
lose her insurance. At 5 months pregnant, she is going to lose her 
insurance.
  I would argue the pro-life position is to make an accommodation for 
that woman who has those needs so she can safely carry the baby to 
term.
  Now, by the way, it is also good for business. Others are endorsing 
this from the business sector. I will just give one: the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. They clearly see that this is something that is a 
reasonable accommodation not forced by unnamed bureaucrats in 
Washington, DC, or important people who are employing others across the 
Nation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made this a top priority.
  With regard to pro-life issues, let me also point out that the March 
of Dimes, who are so vitally concerned about the health of children, 
likewise supports it.
  My colleague has mentioned that it passed out of the HELP Committee 
19 to 2, strongly bipartisan, and then passed the House with 315 
bipartisan votes.
  Now, we have experience with these laws nationwide; 30 States have 
laws such as this already. But that leaves millions of American women 
uncovered, and our goal was to address it with this bill.
  Now, let me just go back once more, because, apparently, this is a 
sticking point.
  Is it possible that this law would permit someone to impose their 
will upon a pastor, upon a church, upon a synagogue, if they have 
religious exemptions? The answer is, absolutely no. This is what the 
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was referring to. The title VII 
exemption, which is in Federal law, remains in place. It allows 
employers to make employment decisions based on firmly held religious 
beliefs. This bill does not change this.
  There is an exemption in title VI related to pastors and ministers 
and Rabbis who conduct their business. All of that remains in place, 
which is why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night once 
again endorsed the bill.
  Now, I think even those who oppose would agree that we need to have a 
safe environment for pregnant women and their unborn children in the 
workplace. They deserve our attention. I would say that this bill is 
pro-family, pro-mother, pro-baby, pro-employer, and pro-economy.
  I hope at a later point we can pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Just by way of conclusion, I hope we can continue to work 
with our colleagues to get this bill passed.
  I want to say for the record, however, that under the act, under the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Equal Opportunity Employment 
Commission, the EEOC, could not--could not--issue any regulation that 
requires abortion leave, nor does the act permit the EEOC to require 
employers to provide abortions in violation of State law.
  The EEOC understands that what is reasonable is specific to each 
workplace. For example, if the accommodation conflicts with a generally 
accepted work rule, like a seniority system, that is generally not 
reasonable.
  So for these and other reasons, we want to get this bill passed and 
not have to start all over again to delay the passage of the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator 
Klobuchar, Senator Cotton, and Senator Paul be permitted to complete 
their remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.