[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1550-H1553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIRNESS FOR BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS ACT OF 2017
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1174) to provide a lactation room in public buildings, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1174
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness For Breastfeeding
Mothers Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. LACTATION ROOM IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
(a) Lactation Room in Public Buildings.--Chapter 33 of
title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 3318. Lactation room in public buildings
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate authority.--The term `appropriate
authority' means the head of a Federal agency, the Architect
of the Capitol, or other official authority responsible for
the operation of a public building.
``(2) Covered public building.--The term `covered public
building' means a public building (as defined in section
3301) that is open to the public and contains a public
restroom, and includes a building listed in section 6301 or
5101.
``(3) Lactation room.--The term `lactation room' means a
hygienic place, other than a bathroom, that--
``(A) is shielded from view;
``(B) is free from intrusion; and
``(C) contains a chair, a working surface, and, if the
public building is otherwise supplied with electricity, an
electrical outlet.
``(b) Lactation Room Required.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), the appropriate authority of a covered public
building shall ensure that the building contains a lactation
room that is made available for use by members of the public
to express breast milk.
``(c) Exceptions.--A covered public building may be
excluded from the requirement in subsection (b) at the
discretion of the appropriate authority if--
``(1) the public building--
``(A) does not contain a lactation room for employees who
work in the building; and
``(B) does not have a room that could be repurposed as a
lactation room or a space that could be made private using
portable materials, at a reasonable cost; or
``(2) new construction would be required to create a
lactation room in the public building and the cost of such
construction is unfeasible.
``(d) No Unauthorized Entry.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to authorize an individual to enter a public
building or portion thereof that the individual is not
otherwise authorized to enter.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item related to section 3316
the following new item:
``3318. Lactation room in public buildings.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1174, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues for their work on bringing
this bill to the floor today.
H.R. 1174 is a straightforward bill that would make nursing rooms
available to new mothers in public buildings. The bill would apply to
buildings already open to the public and which already have nursing
rooms for employees. The requirements would not apply if existing space
cannot feasibly be repurposed.
This is a good bill that will make the lives of nursing mothers
easier and will improve the accessibility of public buildings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1174,
the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017, introduced by my
good friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for
yielding. I certainly thank him for being a cosponsor of my bill.
I should start, however, by thanking Chairman Shuster, and Ranking
Member DeFazio, who have moved this bill so quickly.
The bill is called the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of
2017. This is a real motherhood bill. Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Johnson, and
Barbara Comstock have all joined me as cosponsors.
H.R. 1174 requires locations that are either federally owned or
leased to provide designated private and hygenic lactation space for
nursing mothers. As I will indicate, no new space in buildings or
expenditures is contemplated.
Last Congress, I offered this bill as an amendment to the Public
Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 2016, and I was pleased to have it
pass the House.
Space for lactating women is already required for Federal employees.
We are really not talking about a new kind of benefit. Certainly, there
is no new money. The reason that this is not new is because Federal
employees already have lactating space under the Affordable Care Act.
So I have to ask my good friends on the other side: As you try to
repeal the Affordable Care Act, do you propose to erase this motherhood
provision as well? Will you preserve it?
{time} 1745
My bill extends the lactating space requirement to include not just
employees, but visitors and guests of Federal facilities across the
Nation. H.R. 1174 also does not require additional Federal funds or
space to be mandated at all. Since Federal employees already have this
space, I look forward to visitors to Federal buildings also making use
of this space. In our country, new mothers often come to visit Federal
buildings, not only those who work in Federal buildings.
The reason this is such an important bill is that the benefits of
breast milk are so well documented: antibodies and hormones that boost
babies' immune systems, lower risks of asthma, diabetes, respiratory
infections, and other diseases among breastfed babies.
There are benefits also for nursing mothers. Research has shown that
there are lower risks of diabetes and even cancer as a result of
breastfeeding. Speaking of motherhood, the Republican healthcare plan
would even make maternity care significantly more expensive.
Now, this, of course, is a bill that is very easy to support, but
when we think of its links to other important legislation, I ask that
there be sincere consideration given to whether or not at this moment
in time my good friends across the aisle want their legacy to be: We
actually repealed your health care.
I don't think they are going to be able to do it.
My Republican friends have no experience with structural reform. If
you look at all the structural reform in our country, beginning with
the New Deal, none of it was done by Republicans. Whether you are
talking about the administrative agencies that are so important to all
that we do in this country, Medicare, Medicaid, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, whatever you have in mind, these are
structural reforms that Republicans
[[Page H1551]]
have, if anything, opposed, as they opposed Social Security, for
example.
So here what they are trying to do is to unravel, take away health
care, and then put something in its place. They have no experience
doing anything like it. Anybody who has looked closely at it has to
doubt, as I do, that they can do it.
Look what they will be doing. In my own district, the District of
Columbia, we have cut in half the rate of uninsured.
Are Republicans going to give me a guarantee that that cut will
remain if they replace the bill with the markup that is going on as we
speak?
Ninety-six percent of District of Columbia residents have health
coverage today. That is comparable to other advanced countries in the
world. As we know, most countries in the world already afford this kind
of coverage. That makes the District, according to whoever is doing the
counting, number one, number two, or number three in the Nation in
health care provided to our residents. I am very proud of that. I am
going to fight like mad to keep it.
Mr. Speaker, many of us had healthcare townhalls over the recess. We
saw what happened at the townhalls on affordable care that my good
friends on the other side also had. They met a revolution from their
own constituents. We didn't have that problem in our townhalls. Some of
the stories that residents brought forward are truly heartbreaking, so
I want to leave you with one.
A woman who came to testify at my healthcare townhall, her name is
Markita. Markita's grandmother was a D.C. Public Schools cafeteria
worker for most of her career. She retired early. She retired before
she had Social Security or Medicare. She was suffering from diabetes
and a stroke, but she was so prideful that she never let anyone know
that she had to slice her pills in half just to get by. Now she is
under the protection of the Affordable Care Act. Markita's grandmother
is healthier and can afford her medication. She is no longer splitting
her pills in half.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1174, the Fairness
for Breastfeeding Mothers Act. I thank my colleague for introducing it.
It was unanimously supported--thank you, Mr. Chairman--in committee and
in full committee. As expected, it is going through because people
understand this is a commonsense bill, so I am happy to support this
once again.
I know you were discussing H.R. 375 earlier. I did want to return to
the bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse in Nashville,
Tennessee, to my good friend, Fred D. Thompson. That building will now
be named after him appropriately.
Fred Thompson was a larger-than-life character, a true patriot, and a
great wit who believed in and lived the American Dream in starring
roles on stage, screen, and national politics. He served as a Senator
for 8 years, and then later he ran for President. Originally he was
here in Congress serving as a counsel where, of course, we had that
famous line: ``What did the President know, and when did he know it?''
That was a line that he was well known for.
What he was also often not given credit for was what a profoundly
good lawyer he was. He had come to the attention of people in Tennessee
by Lamar Alexander when Howard Baker came and asked now-Senator Lamar
Alexander to take a role in the Watergate hearings, he said: No; you
want to have Fred Thompson there. He asked his friend Fred Thompson to
come and serve in that role.
Fred then became an actor because when they went to write a movie
about a woman who had been dealing with corruption in Tennessee
politics, and Fred had been her lawyer, they couldn't find someone to
play Fred, and they came and asked him: Could you play yourself? He
said: Well, I guess I could. That is how he became a character actor
and a larger-than-life character there. Some of his famous lines there:
``Stack `em, pack `em, and rack `em.'' In ``Die Hard'' I believe that
one was.
In movies, he starred with Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood,
Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall, Bruce Willis, Sissy Spacek, and so many
others. After he came here to the Senate, he humorously said: ``I often
long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.'' So this is somebody
who took his job very seriously but never took himself seriously and
continued to have that great wit.
My husband and I were very privileged to know him and learn from him
and spend many a good day and delightful time and evening with him and
his wife, Jeri, his family, his children, and his many friends and
admirers. We are so grateful for and appreciate his celebrated service
and justly celebrated service to our country. This building will be a
great memorial in a State that still very much reveres him.
I was privileged to be able to attend his service where hundreds and
hundreds of people from Tennessee came to honor him, from country
singers to people who stood by the side of the road as we drove to his
funeral service, saluting him and thanking him for his service. This is
somebody who in today's politics is sorely missed by all of us, and
certainly most by his many friends, his family, and his scores of fans.
God bless the Honorable Fred Thompson.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to be able to have
this building now be a legacy to his great service and being a great
attorney and lawyer for this country.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
What happened 43, 44 years ago during the Watergate hearings with
that seminal question that everyone keeps asking, ``What did the
President know, and when did he know it?'' and in the words of Yogi
Berra: ``It's deja vu all over again.''
People are asking that question today, and it rings more loudly today
than it did back then in 1973, 1974, ``What did the President know, and
when did he know it?'' about a lot of issues.
But this issue of the Affordable Care Act and whether or not you are
going to repeal it and replace it with something better or you are
going to repeal and replace it with something worse, what did the
President know, and when did he know it?
Because it is clear now to everybody who has had the opportunity to
look at this offering that the Republicans have put forward, you are
going to be worse off today than you were when the Affordable Care Act
was implemented because 20 million of the 30 million people who are on
coverage now will be off coverage if this thing passes.
This Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017, which was
introduced by my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Norton, which I am
so pleased to be a cosponsor of, is a bill from a mother herself who
knows the needs of other mothers. This is bipartisan. I am so happy
that this bill is passing today, but I will tell you, I can't help but
think of the 20 million people who are going to lose their coverage. A
lot of those people are women and children, even some babies. They are
going to lose coverage because the Republicans are kicking them off
under their plan. They will be a healthy part of that 20 million people
who lose their coverage. It is unfair. It is not right. It is un-
American.
Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on my side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with the greatest respect for my colleague from
the District of Columbia and her passion on this subject and the bill
that she has introduced. I rise with equal respect for my colleague,
Chairman Barletta, and the way in which he has walked this bill through
the process, but I am going to oppose this bill. I am going to do so on
the basis of process. I thought it important to explain why, given, I
think, the amount of energy that has gone into the bill and the fact
that I wasn't able to voice a vote against it when it was voice voted
at the committee level.
I do so because I think that blank checks rarely work out well for
the
[[Page H1552]]
taxpayer. In fairness to the bill, it is not a blank check. The bill is
actually prescribed in three different ways--the way in which it will
impact Federal buildings. My problem, though, is on methodology in that
the General Services Administration that ultimately gave the numbers to
the CBO on which they base their score did not get in final form how
many Federal buildings we are talking about. I think that leaves,
therefore, something of an open end as to what this bill will
ultimately cost; and that then goes to impact the very children for
whom the breastfeeding will take place.
{time} 1800
A child born in America today is going to inherit a giant liability
from the Federal Government in terms of the cost of our Federal
Government. By accountants from both the left and the right, they have
said what we have in place is not sustainable. Therefore, I think it is
very important, from a process standpoint, that we look at a final form
number on any of these bills that we throw out and we prescribe,
regardless of, again, how well-meaning they are and how measured they
are, which is certainly the case with this bill.
I wanted to stand to give a quick explanation. I thank the gentleman
for the time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my friend, opposes the bill because the CBO
scoring process, which came up with a no-cost estimate for this bill,
the contention is that that CBO study was insufficient. Well, I am sure
that my colleague and friend from South Carolina will agree with me
that with no CBO scoring for this congressional Republican healthcare
repeal bill that they have put forward, then we are certainly not in a
position to proceed further with a fast-track legislating process, as
this bill seems to be on. They are going to mark it up with no
hearings.
When we were dealing with the Affordable Care Act, we held 79
hearings over 2 years, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the
aisle, and posted the bill online for 30 days. The CBO scoring actually
showed that this bill was going to save money, as opposed to cost.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague from South Carolina to be in
opposition to his own party's healthcare repeal bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the kind gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), my friend.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work
on this.
Mr. Speaker, after weeks of empty promises that he had a secret plan
to insure every American at lower costs with higher quality care,
President Trump is now standing behind a House GOP repeal plan that was
introduced last night that fails every single one of those promises.
Based on estimates that we have seen so far, millions of Americans
stand to lose coverage, out-of-pocket costs will skyrocket, and the
quality of care will plummet.
But today, hours after that bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker, our
President referenced a to-be-announced second and third phase of his
healthcare rollout that Secretary Price referred to as ``a work in
progress,'' once again injecting our healthcare system with crippling
uncertainty that is hurting our patients, hospitals, behavioral health
providers, and local economies.
If you are so proud of this bill, why has it been locked in dark
rooms? Why not have an open debate? What are we so afraid of to have a
debate on this floor?
That is why I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to
support my resolution of inquiry tomorrow, to try to make sure that the
details that have been discussed by this White House and by the
Republicans behind closed doors are open for America to understand
before we cram a healthcare overhaul down our throats.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was looking at my
congressional calendar, and I noticed that this year we are working in
Washington, D.C., more than we have under the past 5 years of the rein
of the Republicans. We have been the most do-nothingest Congresses on
record for many years, and so this year we will be working. But I am
baffled as to whether or not it is because the Republicans don't want
to go home and face their constituents in a townhall meeting about the
Affordable Care Act repeal bill that they have filed. We will be here
in session now for another 4 weeks before the public has a chance to
hear from their Representative when they return home for an extended
time. But on the flip side, that gives everybody time to prepare for
those upcoming townhall meetings which need to be held to explain what
they are trying to do to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), my friend.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Last Thursday, I was wandering the Capitol searching for the
Republican's secret repeal bill. We went from room to room, and it
wasn't there. But now that I have seen it, I understand why they would
want to hide it.
Even if we can all agree that we need to make health care more
affordable and more accessible, this bill is not the solution. In fact,
this bill will only make things worse.
The Republican repeal bill gives tax breaks to the rich. We are
talking about over $600 billion overall, while taking away health
coverage from millions of Americans. The Republican repeal bill will
drastically increase the cost of health insurance for millions of
Americans, with the biggest increase for seniors and for working
families.
It would radically change the Medicaid program, slashing funding, and
covering fewer people.
The Republican repeal bill will force Governors and State legislators
to ration care. My Republican Governor weighed in now and said that it
would be trouble for Illinois if Medicaid is cut back.
Who do they want to cut out? Children, the elderly, people with
disabilities. Thousands of hardworking individuals in Illinois will
lose access to health coverage. As I said, in fact, Republican Governor
Bruce Rauner said that our State ``won't do very well'' if the
Republican repeal bill becomes law.
The Republican repeal bill breaks the promise made by President Trump
to cover more Americans at lower cost.
I oppose this bill. I am going to fight tooth and nail to protect our
care. And, frankly, I think this bill, as my mother would say, is
deader than a door nail.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who opined that this bill was not scored
correctly.
We are talking about space already designated for Federal employees.
The intent of the bill, and I am the author of the bill, which could
never have gotten through committee if it involved the expenditure of
funds. Yes, sometimes these lactation rooms will be dedicated to
lactation, but that doesn't mean they are exclusively designated to
lactation.
And the whole notion that some Federal buildings don't have such
space means they are in violation of the Affordable Care Act, which
requires that they have such space, even if it is not space that is
exclusively used for the few women who are lactating or nursing.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one more point that I
needed to make about this abolition, this abolishment of the Affordable
Care Act plan that has been submitted. A foundation of their plan is
the demise of the individual mandate that requires people to purchase
insurance, so they are claiming that that is a matter of freedom.
Well, the fact is that when everyone is required to have insurance,
it reduces the cost for everyone else. So it was a cost-saving measure
that has worked with the rise in premiums being at the lowest level in
decades. The affordable care has worked to cut the cost of health care.
But what they are doing when they abolish that individual mandate is
they are also going to penalize people who decide to drop their
coverage and pick
[[Page H1553]]
it up later. Or if you miss one payment because you missed work, missed
a paycheck or something like that, you missed 1 month and have to
reinstate, then you are going to pay a 30 percent penalty on your
insurance. That is highway robbery.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1174, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________