INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND HUMAN VALUES, INC

We urge you to oppose H. J. Res. 69, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule. Voiding this vital rule would jeopardize iconic species in Alaska, subvert fundamental environmental laws and undermine management of federal public lands. H. J. Res. 69 is a blatant attempt to cede control of Americas wildlife on over 76 million acres of national wildlife refuges in Alaska to appease narrow state interests, and could have drastic implications for federal management of public trust resources across the country.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H. J. Res. 69

We write to express our profound concerns about a number of President Trumps recent executive orders and policy statements and their connection to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. In his first week in office, President Trump has made extraordinary claims of executive authority, has called for a major investigation into voter fraud, and has outlined numerous policy changes that pose grave dangers to civil liberties and civil rights. Given the reported involvement of Senator Sessions in advising President Trump on some of these matters, we believe you have a profound duty as Chairman and ask that you do everything necessary to ensure that Committee members are fully informed about the role of Senator Sessions in developing these new orders and proposals and his plans to implement and execute them. We are writing to express our views on the factors we urge you to consider in selecting the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Department of Justices Civil Rights Division was created by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and this year marks its 60th anniversary. The Civil Rights Division and its eleven sections have the critical responsibility of enforcing our nations federal civil rights laws. Its mission is to provide equal treatment and equal justice under the law by enforcing and defending the civil rights of all Americans in such areas as voting, criminal justice, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations. Our federal civil rights laws have transformed the nation, outlawing discrimination in nearly every facet of American life. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights that makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with enforcing our nations laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the Attorney General has to be seen by the public - every member of the public, from every community - as a fair arbiter of justice. Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions record, or learned from his confirmation hearing and supporting documents, that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard. We write to remind you in 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty, undertaking a careful and comprehensive review of his record at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented with compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics targeting African Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive statements. This record included warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what he said to white folks, and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as his prosecution of three African-American voting rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly rejected by a jury. We are writing to express our opposition tothe confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write to strongly oppose H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. In this letter, we highlight the most egregious of its many harms. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC or the Commission) Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment (Proposed Enforcement Guidance). Protection against workplace harassment, including sex-based harassment, is key to achieving equal treatment. The undersigned organizations committed to workplace equality have joined to express strong support for the Proposed Enforcement Guidance and believe it will promote the reduction of discrimination and harassment in the workforce. The EEOC last issued policy guidance on harassment in 1999; since then, the law has evolved significantly. One-third of all EEOC charges include an allegation of harassment,1 demonstrating the need for current and robust guidance for employers and EEOC investigators. We write to call on you to recuse yourself from all Department of Justice investigations and actions regarding any interactions between President Donald Trump, his campaign staff or other individuals supporting his campaign and Russian actors during Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, any Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, the activities of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian actors, and leaks concerning these matters. We are writing to urge that you conduct a thorough review of the prior record of Alex Acosta as you consider his nomination for U.S. Secretary of Labor. As organizations that are committed to advancing the civil and human rights of all workers in America, we believe it is essential for this Committee to scrutinize Mr. Acostas tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H. J. Res. 83

We urge you to actively oppose H.J. Res. 42 when it comes to the floor. This measure would repeal a Department of Labor rule intended to implement a bipartisan agreement on implementing a provision in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that allows states to drug test unemployment insurance (UI) applicants in certain circumstances. In 2012, Congress approved a bipartisan compromise on drug testing unemployment insurance claimants. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res 83, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. As CEO of CKE Restaurants, his businesses have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the chief statute which he would be charged with enforcing as Labor Secretary. The Department of Labor has investigated Mr. Puzders restaurants often during his 16 years tenure in that position, and has found violations of wage and hour laws in most of those investigations. He has been an outspoken critic of the very overtime and minimum wage rules which guarantee employees a living wage. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company. We write to express its strong opposition to the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. ISHV believes it is the ethical obligation of all members of our nationwide community and most especially the Labor Department to accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing the right to gainful employment, social security and health care benefits including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. The Secretary of Labor is the nations most senior official tasked with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to women and their families. Mr. Puzders record is entirely inconsistent with these duties. We submit these comments on the Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, Titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. As the interim guidance implements the January 30, 2017 Executive Order, the authority to issue the interim guidance depends on the validity of the Executive Order. In the Executive Order, the President directs federal agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new existing regulation promulgated. For fiscal year 2017, the Executive Order directs federal agencies to ensure that the total incremental costs from all new and repealed regulations is no greater than $0. For subsequent fiscal years, the Executive Order directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to place a dollar cap on incremental costs allowed for each agency in issuing new and repealing existing regulations. The Interim Guidance is directed at Section 2 of the Executive Order, the provisions that apply to the current fiscal year. We understand that the House will soon consider H.R. 985, the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015." We write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. We write to reiterate our strong view that the Department of Labors fiduciary rule, which requires those who give retirement savings advice to put their clients best interest first must be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you to ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his commitment to the rule being implemented on time. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H. J. Res 83, H. J. Res. 83

We urge you to actively oppose H.J. Res. 42 when it comes to the floor. This measure would repeal a Department of Labor rule intended to implement a bipartisan agreement on implementing a provision in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that allows states to drug test unemployment insurance (UI) applicants in certain circumstances. In 2012, Congress approved a bipartisan compromise on drug testing unemployment insurance claimants. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res 83, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. As CEO of CKE Restaurants, his businesses have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the chief statute which he would be charged with enforcing as Labor Secretary. The Department of Labor has investigated Mr. Puzders restaurants often during his 16 years tenure in that position, and has found violations of wage and hour laws in most of those investigations. He has been an outspoken critic of the very overtime and minimum wage rules which guarantee employees a living wage. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company. We write to express its strong opposition to the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. ISHV believes it is the ethical obligation of all members of our nationwide community and most especially the Labor Department to accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing the right to gainful employment, social security and health care benefits including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. The Secretary of Labor is the nations most senior official tasked with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to women and their families. Mr. Puzders record is entirely inconsistent with these duties. We submit these comments on the Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, Titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. As the interim guidance implements the January 30, 2017 Executive Order, the authority to issue the interim guidance depends on the validity of the Executive Order. In the Executive Order, the President directs federal agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new existing regulation promulgated. For fiscal year 2017, the Executive Order directs federal agencies to ensure that the total incremental costs from all new and repealed regulations is no greater than $0. For subsequent fiscal years, the Executive Order directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to place a dollar cap on incremental costs allowed for each agency in issuing new and repealing existing regulations. The Interim Guidance is directed at Section 2 of the Executive Order, the provisions that apply to the current fiscal year. We understand that the House will soon consider H.R. 985, the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015." We write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. We write to reiterate our strong view that the Department of Labors fiduciary rule, which requires those who give retirement savings advice to put their clients best interest first must be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you to ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his commitment to the rule being implemented on time. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 985

We are writing to express our opposition to the confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, which is closely divided on many critical issues, Judge Gorsuch would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of our core rights and legal protections. He lacks the impartiality and independence the American people expect and deserve from the federal bench. We join together as diverse voices from a variety of sectors to oppose the harmful global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy. While the Helms Amendment restricts U.S. foreign assistance funding for abortions as a method of family planning, the global gag rule goes a step further by blocking aid to foreign organizations who use their own non-U.S. funds to provide information, referrals, or services for legal abortion or to advocate for access to abortion services in their own country. We respectfully request that you demonstrate your support for public health by opposing H.J.Res. 43 and S.J.Res. 13. As representatives of diverse areas of the nations public health infrastructure, we urge you to support another critical piece of that infrastructure: Title X, the nations only dedicated source of public funding for family planning. These resolutions would overturn an important rule finalized in December 2016 that protects the ability of local communities to develop family planning networks that work best for them. As members of the Act for Women campaign, we write to thank you for your leadership on the Womens Health Protection Act (S. 217/ H.R. 448). This campaign unites national, state, and local organizations working to support and advance this critical legislation.

As this Congressional session comes to a close, we want to make clear our strong commitment to the Women's Health Protection Act. It is no secret that anti-choice leaders and activists have increasingly sought new ways to undermine womens access to abortion care. Even with the landmark Supreme Court victory this summer in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, many state legislators are still determined to erode, if not eradicate, the promise of Roe v. Wade. Since 2011, states have enacted 334 abortion restrictions, including laws that interfere with the practice of medicine by mandating unnecessary procedures and unconstitutional bans on abortion before viability.



Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 448

We write to express our profound concerns about a number of President Trumps recent executive orders and policy statements and their connection to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. In his first week in office, President Trump has made extraordinary claims of executive authority, has called for a major investigation into voter fraud, and has outlined numerous policy changes that pose grave dangers to civil liberties and civil rights. Given the reported involvement of Senator Sessions in advising President Trump on some of these matters, we believe you have a profound duty as Chairman and ask that you do everything necessary to ensure that Committee members are fully informed about the role of Senator Sessions in developing these new orders and proposals and his plans to implement and execute them. We are writing to express our views on the factors we urge you to consider in selecting the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Department of Justices Civil Rights Division was created by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and this year marks its 60th anniversary. The Civil Rights Division and its eleven sections have the critical responsibility of enforcing our nations federal civil rights laws. Its mission is to provide equal treatment and equal justice under the law by enforcing and defending the civil rights of all Americans in such areas as voting, criminal justice, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations. Our federal civil rights laws have transformed the nation, outlawing discrimination in nearly every facet of American life. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights that makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with enforcing our nations laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the Attorney General has to be seen by the public - every member of the public, from every community - as a fair arbiter of justice. Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions record, or learned from his confirmation hearing and supporting documents, that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard. We write to remind you in 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty, undertaking a careful and comprehensive review of his record at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented with compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics targeting African Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive statements. This record included warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what he said to white folks, and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as his prosecution of three African-American voting rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly rejected by a jury. We are writing to express our opposition tothe confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write to strongly oppose H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. In this letter, we highlight the most egregious of its many harms. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC or the Commission) Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment (Proposed Enforcement Guidance). Protection against workplace harassment, including sex-based harassment, is key to achieving equal treatment. The undersigned organizations committed to workplace equality have joined to express strong support for the Proposed Enforcement Guidance and believe it will promote the reduction of discrimination and harassment in the workforce. The EEOC last issued policy guidance on harassment in 1999; since then, the law has evolved significantly. One-third of all EEOC charges include an allegation of harassment,1 demonstrating the need for current and robust guidance for employers and EEOC investigators. We write to call on you to recuse yourself from all Department of Justice investigations and actions regarding any interactions between President Donald Trump, his campaign staff or other individuals supporting his campaign and Russian actors during Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, any Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, the activities of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian actors, and leaks concerning these matters. We are writing to urge that you conduct a thorough review of the prior record of Alex Acosta as you consider his nomination for U.S. Secretary of Labor. As organizations that are committed to advancing the civil and human rights of all workers in America, we believe it is essential for this Committee to scrutinize Mr. Acostas tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 985

We urge you to actively oppose H.J. Res. 42 when it comes to the floor. This measure would repeal a Department of Labor rule intended to implement a bipartisan agreement on implementing a provision in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that allows states to drug test unemployment insurance (UI) applicants in certain circumstances. In 2012, Congress approved a bipartisan compromise on drug testing unemployment insurance claimants. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res 83, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. As CEO of CKE Restaurants, his businesses have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the chief statute which he would be charged with enforcing as Labor Secretary. The Department of Labor has investigated Mr. Puzders restaurants often during his 16 years tenure in that position, and has found violations of wage and hour laws in most of those investigations. He has been an outspoken critic of the very overtime and minimum wage rules which guarantee employees a living wage. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company. We write to express its strong opposition to the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. ISHV believes it is the ethical obligation of all members of our nationwide community and most especially the Labor Department to accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing the right to gainful employment, social security and health care benefits including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. The Secretary of Labor is the nations most senior official tasked with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to women and their families. Mr. Puzders record is entirely inconsistent with these duties. We submit these comments on the Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, Titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. As the interim guidance implements the January 30, 2017 Executive Order, the authority to issue the interim guidance depends on the validity of the Executive Order. In the Executive Order, the President directs federal agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new existing regulation promulgated. For fiscal year 2017, the Executive Order directs federal agencies to ensure that the total incremental costs from all new and repealed regulations is no greater than $0. For subsequent fiscal years, the Executive Order directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to place a dollar cap on incremental costs allowed for each agency in issuing new and repealing existing regulations. The Interim Guidance is directed at Section 2 of the Executive Order, the provisions that apply to the current fiscal year. We understand that the House will soon consider H.R. 985, the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015." We write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. We write to reiterate our strong view that the Department of Labors fiduciary rule, which requires those who give retirement savings advice to put their clients best interest first must be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you to ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his commitment to the rule being implemented on time. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 985

We are writing to express our opposition to the confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, which is closely divided on many critical issues, Judge Gorsuch would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of our core rights and legal protections. He lacks the impartiality and independence the American people expect and deserve from the federal bench. We join together as diverse voices from a variety of sectors to oppose the harmful global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy. While the Helms Amendment restricts U.S. foreign assistance funding for abortions as a method of family planning, the global gag rule goes a step further by blocking aid to foreign organizations who use their own non-U.S. funds to provide information, referrals, or services for legal abortion or to advocate for access to abortion services in their own country. We respectfully request that you demonstrate your support for public health by opposing H.J.Res. 43 and S.J.Res. 13. As representatives of diverse areas of the nations public health infrastructure, we urge you to support another critical piece of that infrastructure: Title X, the nations only dedicated source of public funding for family planning. These resolutions would overturn an important rule finalized in December 2016 that protects the ability of local communities to develop family planning networks that work best for them. As members of the Act for Women campaign, we write to thank you for your leadership on the Womens Health Protection Act (S. 217/ H.R. 448). This campaign unites national, state, and local organizations working to support and advance this critical legislation.

As this Congressional session comes to a close, we want to make clear our strong commitment to the Women's Health Protection Act. It is no secret that anti-choice leaders and activists have increasingly sought new ways to undermine womens access to abortion care. Even with the landmark Supreme Court victory this summer in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, many state legislators are still determined to erode, if not eradicate, the promise of Roe v. Wade. Since 2011, states have enacted 334 abortion restrictions, including laws that interfere with the practice of medicine by mandating unnecessary procedures and unconstitutional bans on abortion before viability.



Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S. 217

We respectfully request that you demonstrate your support for public health by opposing H.J.Res. 43 and S.J.Res. 13. As representatives of diverse areas of the nations public health infrastructure, we urge you to support another critical piece of that infrastructure: Title X, the nations only dedicated source of public funding for family planning. These resolutions would overturn an important rule finalized in December 2016 that protects the ability of local communities to develop family planning networks that work best for them. We write in strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as United States attorney general. Given his long record of hostility towards reproductive rights and his alignment1 with extreme anti-abortion organizations, we firmly believe that Senator Sessions is not capable of fair and impartial action as attorney general. His long-held bias will negate his ability to oversee Department of Justice obligations to protect without prejudice the constitutional right to abortion, as well as the patients and providers of reproductive health care.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S.J.Res. 13

We are writing to express our opposition to the confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, which is closely divided on many critical issues, Judge Gorsuch would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of our core rights and legal protections. He lacks the impartiality and independence the American people expect and deserve from the federal bench. We join together as diverse voices from a variety of sectors to oppose the harmful global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy. While the Helms Amendment restricts U.S. foreign assistance funding for abortions as a method of family planning, the global gag rule goes a step further by blocking aid to foreign organizations who use their own non-U.S. funds to provide information, referrals, or services for legal abortion or to advocate for access to abortion services in their own country. We respectfully request that you demonstrate your support for public health by opposing H.J.Res. 43 and S.J.Res. 13. As representatives of diverse areas of the nations public health infrastructure, we urge you to support another critical piece of that infrastructure: Title X, the nations only dedicated source of public funding for family planning. These resolutions would overturn an important rule finalized in December 2016 that protects the ability of local communities to develop family planning networks that work best for them. As members of the Act for Women campaign, we write to thank you for your leadership on the Womens Health Protection Act (S. 217/ H.R. 448). This campaign unites national, state, and local organizations working to support and advance this critical legislation.

As this Congressional session comes to a close, we want to make clear our strong commitment to the Women's Health Protection Act. It is no secret that anti-choice leaders and activists have increasingly sought new ways to undermine womens access to abortion care. Even with the landmark Supreme Court victory this summer in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, many state legislators are still determined to erode, if not eradicate, the promise of Roe v. Wade. Since 2011, states have enacted 334 abortion restrictions, including laws that interfere with the practice of medicine by mandating unnecessary procedures and unconstitutional bans on abortion before viability.



Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S.J.Res. 13

We write to express our profound concerns about a number of President Trumps recent executive orders and policy statements and their connection to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. In his first week in office, President Trump has made extraordinary claims of executive authority, has called for a major investigation into voter fraud, and has outlined numerous policy changes that pose grave dangers to civil liberties and civil rights. Given the reported involvement of Senator Sessions in advising President Trump on some of these matters, we believe you have a profound duty as Chairman and ask that you do everything necessary to ensure that Committee members are fully informed about the role of Senator Sessions in developing these new orders and proposals and his plans to implement and execute them. We are writing to express our views on the factors we urge you to consider in selecting the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Department of Justices Civil Rights Division was created by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and this year marks its 60th anniversary. The Civil Rights Division and its eleven sections have the critical responsibility of enforcing our nations federal civil rights laws. Its mission is to provide equal treatment and equal justice under the law by enforcing and defending the civil rights of all Americans in such areas as voting, criminal justice, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations. Our federal civil rights laws have transformed the nation, outlawing discrimination in nearly every facet of American life. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights that makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with enforcing our nations laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the Attorney General has to be seen by the public - every member of the public, from every community - as a fair arbiter of justice. Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions record, or learned from his confirmation hearing and supporting documents, that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard. We write to remind you in 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty, undertaking a careful and comprehensive review of his record at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented with compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics targeting African Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive statements. This record included warning an African-American colleague to be careful about what he said to white folks, and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as well as his prosecution of three African-American voting rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly rejected by a jury. We are writing to express our opposition tothe confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, and its rulings can dramatically impact the lives and rights of all Americans. Judge Gorsuchs decade-long record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write to strongly oppose H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. In this letter, we highlight the most egregious of its many harms. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC or the Commission) Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment (Proposed Enforcement Guidance). Protection against workplace harassment, including sex-based harassment, is key to achieving equal treatment. The undersigned organizations committed to workplace equality have joined to express strong support for the Proposed Enforcement Guidance and believe it will promote the reduction of discrimination and harassment in the workforce. The EEOC last issued policy guidance on harassment in 1999; since then, the law has evolved significantly. One-third of all EEOC charges include an allegation of harassment,1 demonstrating the need for current and robust guidance for employers and EEOC investigators. We write to call on you to recuse yourself from all Department of Justice investigations and actions regarding any interactions between President Donald Trump, his campaign staff or other individuals supporting his campaign and Russian actors during Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, any Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, the activities of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian actors, and leaks concerning these matters. We are writing to urge that you conduct a thorough review of the prior record of Alex Acosta as you consider his nomination for U.S. Secretary of Labor. As organizations that are committed to advancing the civil and human rights of all workers in America, we believe it is essential for this Committee to scrutinize Mr. Acostas tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S.J. Res. 27

We urge you to actively oppose H.J. Res. 42 when it comes to the floor. This measure would repeal a Department of Labor rule intended to implement a bipartisan agreement on implementing a provision in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that allows states to drug test unemployment insurance (UI) applicants in certain circumstances. In 2012, Congress approved a bipartisan compromise on drug testing unemployment insurance claimants. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res 83, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We write in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 83/ S.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval that would repeal an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employers responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work related injuries and illnesses. This resolution will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries. This OSHA clarifying rule does not impose any new costs nor any new obligations to covered employers, nor does it affect small businesses. It simply clarifies OSHAs authority to hold employers accountable for their longstanding obligation to maintain accurate injury records, a requirement that has been in effect since the Nixon Administration. Further, the rule only covers larger employers in the most dangerous industries. We ask you to vote against the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor because we do not believe that Mr. Puzder will adequately discharge the primary duty of that post, which is to protect the rights of workers. Grounds for that belief are based on his anti-employee public record. As CEO of CKE Restaurants, his businesses have repeatedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the chief statute which he would be charged with enforcing as Labor Secretary. The Department of Labor has investigated Mr. Puzders restaurants often during his 16 years tenure in that position, and has found violations of wage and hour laws in most of those investigations. He has been an outspoken critic of the very overtime and minimum wage rules which guarantee employees a living wage. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company. We write to express its strong opposition to the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. ISHV believes it is the ethical obligation of all members of our nationwide community and most especially the Labor Department to accept responsibility for the well-being of society, guaranteeing the right to gainful employment, social security and health care benefits including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. The Secretary of Labor is the nations most senior official tasked with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to women and their families. Mr. Puzders record is entirely inconsistent with these duties. We submit these comments on the Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, Titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. As the interim guidance implements the January 30, 2017 Executive Order, the authority to issue the interim guidance depends on the validity of the Executive Order. In the Executive Order, the President directs federal agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed for every new existing regulation promulgated. For fiscal year 2017, the Executive Order directs federal agencies to ensure that the total incremental costs from all new and repealed regulations is no greater than $0. For subsequent fiscal years, the Executive Order directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to place a dollar cap on incremental costs allowed for each agency in issuing new and repealing existing regulations. The Interim Guidance is directed at Section 2 of the Executive Order, the provisions that apply to the current fiscal year. We understand that the House will soon consider H.R. 985, the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015." We write to strongly oppose Section 2 of H.R. 985. The bill will undermine the enforcement of this nations civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation will create needless chaos in the courts without actually solving any demonstrated problem. We write to reiterate our strong view that the Department of Labors fiduciary rule, which requires those who give retirement savings advice to put their clients best interest first must be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you to ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his commitment to the rule being implemented on time. We write to respectfully request that you allow members of the HELP Committee as much time as they need to question Andrew Puzder fully during his confirmation hearing, by permitting more than one round of questions from Committee members. We also request that you allow present and former employees of CKE Restaurants to testify as to the working conditions in Mr. Puzders company.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S.J. Res. 27

We write to voice our strong opposition to the sweeping language in Section 1094 of the House version (H.R. 4909) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (NDAA). That provision would authorize taxpayer-funded discrimination in each and every federal contract and grant. We urge the conferees to reject this provision during negotiations on the conference report. Notably, a bipartisan group of four Republicans and six Democrats-led by Representatives Charlie Dent and Adam Smith-submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee to strip Section 1094 from the House NDAA bill, but the Committee prevented the full House from voting on their amendment. The Senate bill (S. 2943) does not contain such a provision. We oppose the Conscience Protection Act (S. 304) and urge you to vote NO when the bill comes to the House floor, expected on Wednesday, July 13. The Conscience Protection Act would allow employers, insurance companies, and hospitals to discriminate against women seeking reproductive health care, seriously undermining womens ability to obtain safe, legal abortion care. The Conscience Protection Act would significantly expand and make permanent the so-called Weldon Amendment, an annual appropriations rider that is intended to restrict womens access to abortion care. July 12 will mark the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. In the month since, Congress has not held a single hearing on the needs of the victims, their families, and survivors, or on ways to better protect the LGBT community from bias-motivated violence or discrimination. We are deeply disappointed to learn that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plans to hold a hearing on a discriminatory, anti-LGBT bill known as the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802) on the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. We write to urge you to cancel this hearing.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 2802

We write to voice our strong opposition to the sweeping language in Section 1094 of the House version (H.R. 4909) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (NDAA). That provision would authorize taxpayer-funded discrimination in each and every federal contract and grant. We urge the conferees to reject this provision during negotiations on the conference report. Notably, a bipartisan group of four Republicans and six Democrats-led by Representatives Charlie Dent and Adam Smith-submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee to strip Section 1094 from the House NDAA bill, but the Committee prevented the full House from voting on their amendment. The Senate bill (S. 2943) does not contain such a provision. We oppose the Conscience Protection Act (S. 304) and urge you to vote NO when the bill comes to the House floor, expected on Wednesday, July 13. The Conscience Protection Act would allow employers, insurance companies, and hospitals to discriminate against women seeking reproductive health care, seriously undermining womens ability to obtain safe, legal abortion care. The Conscience Protection Act would significantly expand and make permanent the so-called Weldon Amendment, an annual appropriations rider that is intended to restrict womens access to abortion care. July 12 will mark the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. In the month since, Congress has not held a single hearing on the needs of the victims, their families, and survivors, or on ways to better protect the LGBT community from bias-motivated violence or discrimination. We are deeply disappointed to learn that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plans to hold a hearing on a discriminatory, anti-LGBT bill known as the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802) on the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. We write to urge you to cancel this hearing.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 4909

We write to express our support for the Pay Equity for All Act (H.R. 6030) and urge you to become a cosponsor. This bill provides an important solution to address the pervasive pay gap that women and people of color experience; it would prohibit employers from relying on the salary history of prospective employees when making hiring and pay decisions. Youve heard that on average women typically make just 80 cents on the male dollar; its even worse for moms and women of color. The gender pay gap is a real problem that deserves targeted solutions. The Pay Equity for All Act provides one of those solutions. The bill would protect job seekers from having to disclose their salary history in order to be interviewed, to be considered for a job offer, or as a condition of employment, and from being retaliated against for refusing to disclose their prior salary. In turn, the bill encourages employers to pay employees based on job requirements and prior experience, rather than arbitrary prior wages. The Institute for Science and Human Values supports the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC) proposed revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to collect pay data from private employers and federal contractors. As an organization dedicated to the well-being of society, guaranteeing various rights, including those of women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities; and supporting education, health care, gainful employment, and other social benefits, we are committed to workplace equality and equal pay for equal work. The proposed collection of pay data will be critically important in helping to identify compensation discrimination and improving enforcement of pay discrimination laws, and will benefit businesses, individual workers, and the economy.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 6030

We submit this letter for the markup of S. 2711, the Native American Education Opportunity Act, to express our strong opposition to private school vouchers in the form of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). ESAs are effectively no different than vouchers; they place funding that would ordinarily support students attending public schools into an account for students to use on other education expenses, including private school tuition. Like vouchers, ESAs divert desperately-needed federal resources away from the primary school system students attend to fund the education of a few, select students in alternative settings. Furthermore, voucher and ESA programs lack accountability, do not improve educational outcomes of students, strip students of rights, and do real harm to the public school systems that educate the majority of students in a state or district.1 At a time when schools serving American Indian students are desperately in need of funding,2 Congress would better serve all American Indian students by using federal funds to make schools serving American Indian students stronger and safer than by allowing funds to flow to a separate voucher program.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S. 2711

We write to voice our strong opposition to the sweeping language in Section 1094 of the House version (H.R. 4909) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (NDAA). That provision would authorize taxpayer-funded discrimination in each and every federal contract and grant. We urge the conferees to reject this provision during negotiations on the conference report. Notably, a bipartisan group of four Republicans and six Democrats-led by Representatives Charlie Dent and Adam Smith-submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee to strip Section 1094 from the House NDAA bill, but the Committee prevented the full House from voting on their amendment. The Senate bill (S. 2943) does not contain such a provision. We oppose the Conscience Protection Act (S. 304) and urge you to vote NO when the bill comes to the House floor, expected on Wednesday, July 13. The Conscience Protection Act would allow employers, insurance companies, and hospitals to discriminate against women seeking reproductive health care, seriously undermining womens ability to obtain safe, legal abortion care. The Conscience Protection Act would significantly expand and make permanent the so-called Weldon Amendment, an annual appropriations rider that is intended to restrict womens access to abortion care. July 12 will mark the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. In the month since, Congress has not held a single hearing on the needs of the victims, their families, and survivors, or on ways to better protect the LGBT community from bias-motivated violence or discrimination. We are deeply disappointed to learn that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plans to hold a hearing on a discriminatory, anti-LGBT bill known as the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802) on the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. We write to urge you to cancel this hearing.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S. 2943

We write to voice our strong opposition to the sweeping language in Section 1094 of the House version (H.R. 4909) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 (NDAA). That provision would authorize taxpayer-funded discrimination in each and every federal contract and grant. We urge the conferees to reject this provision during negotiations on the conference report. Notably, a bipartisan group of four Republicans and six Democrats-led by Representatives Charlie Dent and Adam Smith-submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee to strip Section 1094 from the House NDAA bill, but the Committee prevented the full House from voting on their amendment. The Senate bill (S. 2943) does not contain such a provision. We oppose the Conscience Protection Act (S. 304) and urge you to vote NO when the bill comes to the House floor, expected on Wednesday, July 13. The Conscience Protection Act would allow employers, insurance companies, and hospitals to discriminate against women seeking reproductive health care, seriously undermining womens ability to obtain safe, legal abortion care. The Conscience Protection Act would significantly expand and make permanent the so-called Weldon Amendment, an annual appropriations rider that is intended to restrict womens access to abortion care. July 12 will mark the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. In the month since, Congress has not held a single hearing on the needs of the victims, their families, and survivors, or on ways to better protect the LGBT community from bias-motivated violence or discrimination. We are deeply disappointed to learn that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plans to hold a hearing on a discriminatory, anti-LGBT bill known as the First Amendment Defense Act (H.R. 2802) on the one-month anniversary of this tragedy. We write to urge you to cancel this hearing.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S. 304

Re: Proposed Department of Labor (Wage and Hour Division) Rule on Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (RIN 1235-AA13) Dear Mr. Waterman, We writes to express its support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOLs) proposed rule implementing Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (the EO or the Order). As an organization dedicated to [FILL IN], we are committed to ensuring that working families have the job and economic security that paid sick days provide and recognizing the benefits to contractors, the government, taxpayers and the economy. Via online submission RE: RIN 1291-AA36 - Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Dear Ms. Barry-Perez: We write to express our strong support for the Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity regulations implementing Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to align with current law and address its application to current workforce issues. This rule has the potential to increase womens, LGBT persons, and other underrepresented groups access to services, benefits, training, programs, and employment in and through the workforce development system. It also has the potential to ensure that workforce development programs help end-not reinforce-occupational gender segregation and the gender pay gap. We urge you to co-sponsor the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act (S. 2042/H.R. 3514). Introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA), this important legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by strengthening protections for working people who organize and promote change through collective action. The WAGE Act would increase protections for all working people and will help open up pathways to equal pay, increased safety in the workplace, and higher wages. The very best way to raise wages and turn the tide back in favor of working people is to protect and strengthen their right to speak out together. We applaud Senator Murray and Representative Scott for their work on this legislation, and urge you to co-sponsor it. Re: Proposed Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), FR Docket Number 2016-01544, Docket ID EEOC-2016-0002 Dear Ms. Wilson: ISHV supports the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC) proposed revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to collect pay data from employers. Collecting compensation data through the proposed revision of the EEO-1 will promote the critically important goals of identifying pay discrimination, improving enforcement of pay discrimination laws, and increasing voluntary employer compliance with those laws. Use of a modified version of an existing collection mechanism will also improve coordination between EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor, and avoid costly or burdensome duplication of efforts. We also offer some suggestions for strengthening the proposed revision to ensure achievement of these goals. Support for The Pay Stub Transparency Act Dear Congressman Scott: The undersigned organizations write in enthusiastic support for H.R. 4376, The Pay Stub Transparency Act, which you introduced on January 13, 2016. As you know, wage theft is an epidemic that costs mostly low-wage workers tens of billions of dollars each year in unpaid wages. The legal tools they have at their disposal, be it thinly-resourced departments of labor or private lawsuits, are not available to far too many workers seeking to be properly paid for all of their work. The Pay Stub Transparency Act is an important weapon in the fight against wage theft. As an organization dedicated to eliminating sex discrimination in the workplace and promoting policies that benefit women and working families, we urge you to support the Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act of 2016 (Restoring Statutory Rights Act), introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The Restoring Statutory Rights Act would restore the rights of workers to pursue their state and federal law claims and obtain remedies in court rather than forcing arbitration of their claims. For women and all workers, access to courts is critically important to pursue remedies of civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and family and medical leave claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The practice of forced arbitration is widespread and damaging. The Honorable Shaun Donovan Director OMB We write to express our support for the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and to urge you to release the final rule as soon as possible. We are an organization dedicated to eradicating all forms of discrimination in the workplace and promoting good jobs for women. This executive order is the latest in a series of important steps the President has taken to bring the federal contractor community closer to achieving these goals. Employers that have the privilege of doing business with the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by the law. This executive order is crucial to the communities we represent because it helps ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and ethically with respect to labor standards, civil rights laws and more. The executive order will ensure that companies applying for federal contracts have every incentive to comply with federal labor and employment laws, including for example the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay Act), Title VII, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. This will lead to fairer treatment for workers in the federal contractor workforce and raise awareness among other employers about their legal obligations. The executive order will also ban compulsory arbitration of claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which is critical to ensuring that workers can have their day in court. Re: RIN 1205-AB59-Proposed Rulemaking on Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employment Opportunity Regulations Dear Ms. Gagliardi: We write to express our strong support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the Apprenticeship Programs Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations after nearly forty years. This rulemaking has the ability to significantly impact the participation of women and other underrepresented groups in apprenticeship and the future of these groups in the trades. In the almost four decades since the EEO regulations were last updated, the representation of women in apprenticeships has remained stagnant. While women make up 47% of the workforce, they account for only 6.3% of apprentices. Persistent barriers to entry and advancement of women in these programs lead to this underrepresentation.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 3514

Re: Proposed Department of Labor (Wage and Hour Division) Rule on Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (RIN 1235-AA13) Dear Mr. Waterman, We writes to express its support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOLs) proposed rule implementing Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (the EO or the Order). As an organization dedicated to [FILL IN], we are committed to ensuring that working families have the job and economic security that paid sick days provide and recognizing the benefits to contractors, the government, taxpayers and the economy. Via online submission RE: RIN 1291-AA36 - Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Dear Ms. Barry-Perez: We write to express our strong support for the Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity regulations implementing Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to align with current law and address its application to current workforce issues. This rule has the potential to increase womens, LGBT persons, and other underrepresented groups access to services, benefits, training, programs, and employment in and through the workforce development system. It also has the potential to ensure that workforce development programs help end-not reinforce-occupational gender segregation and the gender pay gap. We urge you to co-sponsor the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act (S. 2042/H.R. 3514). Introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA), this important legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by strengthening protections for working people who organize and promote change through collective action. The WAGE Act would increase protections for all working people and will help open up pathways to equal pay, increased safety in the workplace, and higher wages. The very best way to raise wages and turn the tide back in favor of working people is to protect and strengthen their right to speak out together. We applaud Senator Murray and Representative Scott for their work on this legislation, and urge you to co-sponsor it. Re: Proposed Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), FR Docket Number 2016-01544, Docket ID EEOC-2016-0002 Dear Ms. Wilson: ISHV supports the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC) proposed revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to collect pay data from employers. Collecting compensation data through the proposed revision of the EEO-1 will promote the critically important goals of identifying pay discrimination, improving enforcement of pay discrimination laws, and increasing voluntary employer compliance with those laws. Use of a modified version of an existing collection mechanism will also improve coordination between EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor, and avoid costly or burdensome duplication of efforts. We also offer some suggestions for strengthening the proposed revision to ensure achievement of these goals. Support for The Pay Stub Transparency Act Dear Congressman Scott: The undersigned organizations write in enthusiastic support for H.R. 4376, The Pay Stub Transparency Act, which you introduced on January 13, 2016. As you know, wage theft is an epidemic that costs mostly low-wage workers tens of billions of dollars each year in unpaid wages. The legal tools they have at their disposal, be it thinly-resourced departments of labor or private lawsuits, are not available to far too many workers seeking to be properly paid for all of their work. The Pay Stub Transparency Act is an important weapon in the fight against wage theft. As an organization dedicated to eliminating sex discrimination in the workplace and promoting policies that benefit women and working families, we urge you to support the Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act of 2016 (Restoring Statutory Rights Act), introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The Restoring Statutory Rights Act would restore the rights of workers to pursue their state and federal law claims and obtain remedies in court rather than forcing arbitration of their claims. For women and all workers, access to courts is critically important to pursue remedies of civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and family and medical leave claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The practice of forced arbitration is widespread and damaging. The Honorable Shaun Donovan Director OMB We write to express our support for the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and to urge you to release the final rule as soon as possible. We are an organization dedicated to eradicating all forms of discrimination in the workplace and promoting good jobs for women. This executive order is the latest in a series of important steps the President has taken to bring the federal contractor community closer to achieving these goals. Employers that have the privilege of doing business with the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by the law. This executive order is crucial to the communities we represent because it helps ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and ethically with respect to labor standards, civil rights laws and more. The executive order will ensure that companies applying for federal contracts have every incentive to comply with federal labor and employment laws, including for example the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay Act), Title VII, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. This will lead to fairer treatment for workers in the federal contractor workforce and raise awareness among other employers about their legal obligations. The executive order will also ban compulsory arbitration of claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which is critical to ensuring that workers can have their day in court. Re: RIN 1205-AB59-Proposed Rulemaking on Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employment Opportunity Regulations Dear Ms. Gagliardi: We write to express our strong support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the Apprenticeship Programs Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations after nearly forty years. This rulemaking has the ability to significantly impact the participation of women and other underrepresented groups in apprenticeship and the future of these groups in the trades. In the almost four decades since the EEO regulations were last updated, the representation of women in apprenticeships has remained stagnant. While women make up 47% of the workforce, they account for only 6.3% of apprentices. Persistent barriers to entry and advancement of women in these programs lead to this underrepresentation.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: H.R. 4376

Re: Proposed Department of Labor (Wage and Hour Division) Rule on Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (RIN 1235-AA13) Dear Mr. Waterman, We writes to express its support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOLs) proposed rule implementing Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors (the EO or the Order). As an organization dedicated to [FILL IN], we are committed to ensuring that working families have the job and economic security that paid sick days provide and recognizing the benefits to contractors, the government, taxpayers and the economy. Via online submission RE: RIN 1291-AA36 - Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Dear Ms. Barry-Perez: We write to express our strong support for the Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity regulations implementing Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to align with current law and address its application to current workforce issues. This rule has the potential to increase womens, LGBT persons, and other underrepresented groups access to services, benefits, training, programs, and employment in and through the workforce development system. It also has the potential to ensure that workforce development programs help end-not reinforce-occupational gender segregation and the gender pay gap. We urge you to co-sponsor the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act (S. 2042/H.R. 3514). Introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA), this important legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by strengthening protections for working people who organize and promote change through collective action. The WAGE Act would increase protections for all working people and will help open up pathways to equal pay, increased safety in the workplace, and higher wages. The very best way to raise wages and turn the tide back in favor of working people is to protect and strengthen their right to speak out together. We applaud Senator Murray and Representative Scott for their work on this legislation, and urge you to co-sponsor it. Re: Proposed Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), FR Docket Number 2016-01544, Docket ID EEOC-2016-0002 Dear Ms. Wilson: ISHV supports the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC) proposed revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to collect pay data from employers. Collecting compensation data through the proposed revision of the EEO-1 will promote the critically important goals of identifying pay discrimination, improving enforcement of pay discrimination laws, and increasing voluntary employer compliance with those laws. Use of a modified version of an existing collection mechanism will also improve coordination between EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor, and avoid costly or burdensome duplication of efforts. We also offer some suggestions for strengthening the proposed revision to ensure achievement of these goals. Support for The Pay Stub Transparency Act Dear Congressman Scott: The undersigned organizations write in enthusiastic support for H.R. 4376, The Pay Stub Transparency Act, which you introduced on January 13, 2016. As you know, wage theft is an epidemic that costs mostly low-wage workers tens of billions of dollars each year in unpaid wages. The legal tools they have at their disposal, be it thinly-resourced departments of labor or private lawsuits, are not available to far too many workers seeking to be properly paid for all of their work. The Pay Stub Transparency Act is an important weapon in the fight against wage theft. As an organization dedicated to eliminating sex discrimination in the workplace and promoting policies that benefit women and working families, we urge you to support the Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act of 2016 (Restoring Statutory Rights Act), introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The Restoring Statutory Rights Act would restore the rights of workers to pursue their state and federal law claims and obtain remedies in court rather than forcing arbitration of their claims. For women and all workers, access to courts is critically important to pursue remedies of civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and family and medical leave claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The practice of forced arbitration is widespread and damaging. The Honorable Shaun Donovan Director OMB We write to express our support for the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and to urge you to release the final rule as soon as possible. We are an organization dedicated to eradicating all forms of discrimination in the workplace and promoting good jobs for women. This executive order is the latest in a series of important steps the President has taken to bring the federal contractor community closer to achieving these goals. Employers that have the privilege of doing business with the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by the law. This executive order is crucial to the communities we represent because it helps ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and ethically with respect to labor standards, civil rights laws and more. The executive order will ensure that companies applying for federal contracts have every incentive to comply with federal labor and employment laws, including for example the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay Act), Title VII, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. This will lead to fairer treatment for workers in the federal contractor workforce and raise awareness among other employers about their legal obligations. The executive order will also ban compulsory arbitration of claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which is critical to ensuring that workers can have their day in court. Re: RIN 1205-AB59-Proposed Rulemaking on Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employment Opportunity Regulations Dear Ms. Gagliardi: We write to express our strong support for the U.S. Department of Labors (DOL) proposal to update the Apprenticeship Programs Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations after nearly forty years. This rulemaking has the ability to significantly impact the participation of women and other underrepresented groups in apprenticeship and the future of these groups in the trades. In the almost four decades since the EEO regulations were last updated, the representation of women in apprenticeships has remained stagnant. While women make up 47% of the workforce, they account for only 6.3% of apprentices. Persistent barriers to entry and advancement of women in these programs lead to this underrepresentation.

Client expense: — · Firm income: —

Matched citations: S. 2042