[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 186 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5798-H5816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING URGENT MATERNAL PROTECTIONS FOR NURSING MOTHERS ACT

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
716, I call up the bill (H.R. 3110) to amend the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938 to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the 
workplace, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
printed in part C of House Report 117-137, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3110

       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 ``Providing Urgent Maternal 
     Protections for Nursing Mothers Act'' or the ``PUMP for 
     Nursing Mothers Act''.

     SEC. 2. BREASTFEEDING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE.

       (a) Expanding Employee Access to Break Time and Place.--The 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 7, by striking subsection (r);
       (2) in section 15(a)--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) to violate any of the provisions of section 18D.'';
       (3) in section 16(b) by striking ``7(r) or 15(a)(3)'' each 
     place the term appears and inserting ``15(a)(3) or 18D''; and
       (4) by inserting after section 18C the following:

     ``SEC. 18D. BREASTFEEDING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE.

       ``(a) An employer shall provide--
       ``(1) a reasonable break time for an employee to express 
     breast milk each time such employee has need to express 
     breast milk for the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the circumstances related to such need arise; and
       ``(2) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from 
     view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, 
     which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.
       ``(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an employer shall not be 
     required to compensate an employee receiving break time under 
     subsection (a)(1) for any time spent during the workday for 
     such purpose unless otherwise required by Federal or State 
     law or municipal ordinance.
       ``(2) Break time provided under subsection (a)(1) shall be 
     considered hours worked if the employee is not completely 
     relieved from duty during the entirety of such break.
       ``(c) An employer that employs fewer than 50 employees 
     shall not be subject to the requirements of this section, if 
     such requirements would impose an undue hardship by causing 
     the employer significant difficulty or expense when 
     considered in relation to the size, financial resources, 
     nature, or structure of the employer's business.
       ``(d) No provision of this section or of any order 
     thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or 
     State law or municipal ordinance that provides greater 
     protections to employees than the protections provided for 
     under this section.
       ``(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), before an employee 
     commences an action to recover liability under section 16(b) 
     for a violation of paragraph (a)(2), the employee shall 
     inform the employer of the failure to provide adequate place 
     and provide the employer with 10 calendar days after such 
     notice is provided to come into compliance with subsection 
     (a)(2) with respect to such employee.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case that--
       ``(A) the employee has been discharged because the employee 
     has made a request for break time or place under this section 
     or has opposed any employer conduct related to this section; 
     or
       ``(B) the employer has indicated that the employer has no 
     intention of complying with subsection (a)(2).
       ``(f) The circumstances described in subsection (a)(1) 
     arise if an employee--
       ``(1) begins providing breast milk for a nursing child; or
       ``(2) gives birth, including to--
       ``(A) a stillborn child; or
       ``(B) a child over whom the employee does not retain legal 
     custody.
       ``(g)(1) This action shall apply to an air carrier, as 
     defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code, 
     subject to the following requirements:
       ``(A) In providing a break described in subsection (a)(1) 
     to a crewmember, an employer shall not be required to--
       ``(i) completely relieve such crewmember from duty during 
     break time taken during flight time; or
       ``(ii) provide such a break during critical phases of 
     flight.
       ``(B) Nothing in this subsection shall require an employer 
     to incur significant expense, when considered in relation to 
     the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the 
     employer's business, to retrofit an aircraft.
       (2) In this subsection--
       (A) the terms `flight time' and `crewmember' have the 
     meaning given such terms in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations; and
       (B) the term `critical phases of flight' has the meaning 
     given the term in 121.542 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
       (b) Clarifying Remedies.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``15(a)(3)'' each place the term appears and 
     inserting ``7(r) or 15(a)(3)''.
       (c) Guidance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall issue 
     guidance with respect to employer compliance with section 18D 
     of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by this 
     Act, which shall be similar, with respect to specific 
     examples of compliance, to the guidance relating to 
     ``Supporting Nursing Moms at Work'' published on the website 
     of the Office on Women's Health of the Department of Health 
     and Human Services as of such date of enactment.
       (d) Conforming Coverage of Certain Other Employees.--
     Section 203(a)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and section 12(c)'' and inserting 
     ``section 12(c), and section 18D''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, 218D'' after ``212(c)''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Expanding Access.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c), the amendments made under sections 2(a) and 2(d) shall 
     take effect on the date that is 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Remedies and Clarification.--The amendments made under 
     section 2(b) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Application of Law.--Section 18D of the Fair Labor 
     Relations Act of 1938 (as added by section 2) shall not apply 
     to crewmembers of an air carrier, as defined in section 40102 
     of title 49, United States Code, until the date that is 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, 
     shall propose regulations, as appropriate, to--
       (1) identify appropriate means for air carriers, as defined 
     in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code, to comply 
     with subsection (b)(1) of section 18D of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 during flight time; and
       (2) update title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to ensure 
     that expressing breast milk is considered a physiological 
     need.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page H5799]]

  



                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3110, the PUMP for 
Nursing Mothers Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass H.R. 3110, 
the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or 
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, a bipartisan bill that would 
strengthen workplace protections for nursing mothers.
  Nursing mothers should have a clear right to break time and a clean, 
private space to pump breast milk at work. As we have heard from health 
experts and worker advocates across the country, these basic 
accommodations ensure that nursing mothers can balance their work, 
their health, and the health of their babies.
  Regrettably, many nursing mothers still do not have these 
protections. Under current law, millions of workers--including 
farmworkers, transportation workers, and teachers--are currently 
excluded from Federal protections for nursing employees.
  The nursing mothers who are covered by existing law have limited 
recourse when their rights are violated.
  To close these gaps, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act expands 
existing protections for nursing mothers for nearly 9 million employees 
who are currently left out. It provides nursing workers with access to 
meaningful remedies when employers fail to provide appropriate time and 
pumping space.
  Importantly, this bill includes an amendment to clarify that 
congressional employees are covered by these protections and to address 
safety concerns by including airline crew members break time to pump 
during a flight.
  No working American should be forced to choose between going to work 
and staying healthy, so we must take this urgent step to support 
nursing workers and strengthen our economy.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy in support of H.R. 3110.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 3110--PUMP FOR NURSING MOTHERS ACT--Rep. Maloney, D-NY, and 8 
                               cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for 
     Nursing Mothers Act. No new mother should face unfair 
     treatment in the workplace because their employer refuses to 
     provide them with reasonable break time and private, clean 
     space needed to adequately express breast milk while at work, 
     forcing them to choose between their health and the health of 
     her child, and earning a paycheck. Yet millions of new 
     working mothers, disproportionately working mothers of color, 
     face this challenge every day.
       Congress recognized the importance of ensuring that workers 
     are able to have the time and space they need to express 
     breast milk by passing section 4207 of the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act, also known as the 2010 Break Time 
     for Nursing Mothers Act. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act 
     would ensure that millions of working mothers previously 
     excluded from the 2010 Break Time law are protected. By 
     closing this gap, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will 
     ensure millions of nursing mothers have a clear right to pump 
     at work. Without these protections, nursing mothers face 
     serious health consequences, including risk of painful 
     illness and infection, diminished milk supply, or inability 
     to continue breastfeeding.
       H.R. 3110 is a bipartisan bill that would also require 
     employers to pay an hourly employee for any time spent 
     pumping if the employee is also working. The legislation 
     would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies 
     available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act. Finally, the PUMP Act also gives employers flexibility 
     to identify solutions that work for their specific business 
     environment. For example, the bill requires employees to 
     inform their employers about inadequate space to express 
     breast milk 10 days before filing suit for violating the 
     requirement.
       The Administration encourages the House to pass this 
     bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to 
     working with the Congress to fill the gaps in the law so that 
     all new mothers who choose to breastfeed are guaranteed the 
     workplace protections they deserve.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the 
legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3110.
  This act puts overly burdensome, one-size-fits-all requirements on 
businesses.
  While I believe empowering women in the workplace is important, we 
must not saddle businesses with rigid policies that will open them up 
to legal action. We, instead, must support flexible policies that allow 
women to thrive in the workplace.
  This bill's flawed scheme and expansive mandate do more harm than 
good and will further bog down businesses that are already struggling 
to recover from the pandemic. During this difficult time, the last 
thing small businesses need is more sweeping mandates.
  More than 2 million women left the labor force in 2020. Now more than 
ever, we need to advocate for flexible workplace policies that improve 
conditions for, and empower, working mothers.
  I fully support women who wish to enter and return to the workforce, 
and I understand the challenges that can come with this, especially for 
nursing mothers. Yet, I don't believe one-size-fits-all mandates are 
beneficial, not for women and not for employers.
  Workplaces are as varied as the people they employ. Putting every 
workplace under the same standard, despite a job creator's needs or 
ability to meet that standard, will ultimately be bad for the American 
worker.
  Airlines are just one example of an industry that will be negatively 
impacted if this bill is signed into law. Under this bill's rigid 
requirements, airlines may have to rethink plane designs or modify 
aircraft to provide a private space, other than a bathroom, for nursing 
mothers to pump, as required under the bill.
  The rigid break requirements in the bill are also inappropriate for 
airlines because flight crews have varying responsibilities in 
preparation for and throughout flights, which ensure the safety and 
security of passengers.
  Exposing airlines and other businesses to such inflexible 
requirements will hurt struggling businesses.
  Further, not all nursing mothers have the same needs. Pretending that 
they do might be convenient, but it also demonstrates ignorance about 
the diverse circumstances that mothers are in.
  I wholeheartedly believe that it is possible to provide women with a 
healthy environment in which to work and simultaneously to allow 
businesses flexibility in providing accommodations.
  When I first entered the workforce, nursing-accommodation 
requirements for women in the workplace were not even on the horizon. 
Countless workplaces now provide such accommodations, and rightly so. 
Current law provides accommodations for hourly workers.
  Creating a healthy place for women to thrive is important to us all, 
but there is a right way to go about this and a wrong way. H.R. 3110 is 
the wrong way.
  Most employers have their employees' best interests at heart, but 
H.R. 3110 treats our job creators as if they are out to harm the very 
women they depend on to keep their businesses running.
  Again, this is the wrong way to go about empowering women in the 
workplace.
  This bill's excessive penalties, expansive mandate, and lack of 
clarity will create a perfect storm for frivolous lawsuits. Unfounded 
lawsuits cost businesses billions every year in the United States. We 
should do all we can to prevent opening businesses up to harmful legal 
action.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that Representative Miller-Meeks 
submitted her bill, the Supporting Working Mothers Act, to the Rules 
Committee as an amendment to provide a commonsense alternative to the 
PUMP Act.
  That is a sensible amendment that meets the actual needs of nursing 
mothers without forcing overly burdensome regulations on our job 
creators.
  That amendment, unlike the PUMP Act, expands access to nursing 
accommodations in the workplace without

[[Page H5800]]

relying on punitive mandates that expose businessowners to costly 
litigation.
  The Supporting Working Mothers Act adds nursing-accommodation 
coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional 
employees, ensuring that over 80 percent of currently exempt women are 
covered.
  That amendment also includes a fair and workable process to ensure 
accommodations are provided for nursing mothers by encouraging 
collaboration between workers and employers to identify and make 
improvements when accommodations are insufficient.
  Representative Miller-Meeks' commonsense amendment serves nursing 
mothers in the workforce without sacrificing the well-being of our job 
creators. This is the right way to empower women.
  I am extremely disappointed that the Democrat majority refused to 
make the amendment in order. Democrats chose to stifle debate on this 
commonsense approach to nursing accommodations in favor of a flawed 
mandate.
  Because the bill is impractical and overly punitive, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chair of the 
Oversight and Reform Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of the 
bill.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and for his incredible leadership in this body.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing 
Mothers Act, a bipartisan bill I authored with Representative Herrera 
Beutler. Our bill has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators 
Merkley and Murkowski.
  When I first came to Congress, working mothers would come to me, 
often in tears, and advocate for a place to safely pump breast milk. 
Often, they were fired, ridiculed, forbidden, or forced to pump milk in 
bathrooms.
  Since those years, I have worked for on-site lactation rooms, here in 
government and really everywhere in our country.
  In 1998, I passed a provision allowing State WIC agencies to purchase 
breast pumps for new mothers, making it easier for low-income moms to 
choose breastfeeding.
  In 1999, Congress passed my bill to guarantee the right to breastfeed 
on Federal property.
  Most recently, Senator Merkley and I passed the Break Time for 
Nursing Mothers as part of the Affordable Care Act. This act provides 
employees with critical protections to provide break time for nursing 
mothers and a private place to pump milk.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act we are considering today builds on 
the Break Time Act by protecting the nearly 9 million employees who 
were not originally included in these protections. Those covered by the 
PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act now include teachers, nurses, farmworkers, 
and software engineers, to name a few.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would also ensure that nursing 
mothers have remedies if their employers fire them or violate these 
breastfeeding protections. In addition, if an employee is fired for 
taking a break, the PUMP Act ensures that workers can seek 
reinstatement.
  It also extends breastfeeding protections for 2 years, in line with 
recommendations from the World Health Organization.
  Over 150 organizations have endorsed this important legislation. I 
include in the Record letters of support from some of those 
organizations, including the Center for WorkLife Law, and MomsRising, 
to name a few.

  Written Statement of the Center for WorkLife Law Before the United 
          States House of Representatives--September 24, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of 
     the U.S. House of Representatives: The Center for WorkLife 
     Law submits this letter to the U.S. House of Representatives 
     in full support of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections 
     (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
       The Center for WorkLife Law is a research and advocacy 
     organization that seeks to advance gender, racial, and class 
     equity in employment and education. We collaborate with 
     employees, employers, attorneys, and government officials to 
     identify practical and legal solutions to work-family issues.
       WorkLife Law's 2019 report Exposed: Discrimination Against 
     Breastfeeding Workers found that shortcomings of the existing 
     Break Time for Nursing Mothers law have caused lactating 
     employees to face significant obstacles at work. Even with 
     the current law's protections, breastfeeding employees 
     leaking milk have been denied permission to take pumping 
     breaks; they have been fired just for asking; and refused 
     privacy, forcing them to pump milk with their breasts exposed 
     to coworkers, clients, and the public in physically unsafe 
     conditions. Employees who do not receive the break time and 
     private space they need can face serious health consequences, 
     including illness and painful infections, diminished milk 
     supply, and weaning earlier than doctors recommend. Many 
     employees also suffer economic losses when they are fired or 
     forced to resign following a request for lactation 
     accommodations.
       The PUMP Act would correct key shortcomings of existing law 
     that undermine the economic security and health of women and 
     their families.



       Closing the Coverage Gap that Excludes Millions of Workers

       Nearly 9 million women of childbearing age are currently 
     excluded from the protections of the Break Time for Nursing 
     Mothers Law, meaning they have no clear federal right to 
     receive break time and private space to pump milk during the 
     workday. This exclusion was unintentional at the time the law 
     was enacted. The resulting coverage gap is considerable and 
     impacts employees in a wide range of occupations, including 
     many of those working in the top two pink-collar occupations: 
     nursing and teaching. The PUMP Act would correct this 
     senseless exclusion to bring all workers whose employers are 
     covered by the FLSA under the law's protection.


         Providing Appropriate Remedies to Encourage Compliance

       Even when clear violations occur, the Break Time for 
     Nursing Mothers provision cannot be counted on to deliver 
     appropriate remedies in a court of law. Because employers 
     cannot be held accountable for intentional legal violations, 
     noncompliance has been widespread. As one judge expressed in 
     the case of an EMT who was fired simply for asking that she 
     be given break time and space: ``While the Court is 
     sympathetic to Plaintiff's argument that this renders [the 
     Nursing Mothers law] ineffective, there is no support from 
     the case law or DOL [Department of Labor]'' to provide a 
     remedy. Another federal judge observed: ``An employer faced 
     with a request to allow an employee to take breaks to 
     breastfeed may simply fire the employee rather than attempt 
     to accommodate the request for breaks. And indeed, the Center 
     for WorkLife Law has heard from too many workers whose 
     employers have done exactly that.
       The PUMP Act would correct this absurdity and encourage 
     employers to follow the law by making remedies that are 
     already available in other employment law contexts equally 
     available to breastfeeding workers.
       However, the PUMP Act is not expected to lead to a 
     significant increase in lawsuits. A recent analysis by the 
     Center for WorkLife Law found that while enforceable laws 
     increase breastfeeding rates, they do not cause a meaningful 
     increase in litigation rates. The study reviewed all cases 
     filed in each state with enforceable lactation break time and 
     space laws (similar to the PUMP Act) through 2020 and found:
       Litigation rates for violations of the state laws were 
     extremely low. Over the combined forty-seven years that the 
     four jurisdictions' break time and space laws have been in 
     effect, there were only six (6) cases total.
       The annual likeihood a private employer will be sued under 
     a break time and space law is essentially zero (0.0002 
     percent). A business owner is over 25 times more likely to be 
     struck by lightning in their lifetime.
       Notably, the state laws WorkLife Law studied do not include 
     the additional employer protection found in the PUMP Act that 
     gives businesses 10 days to correct space violations before 
     any lawsuit can be filed, a provision that will further 
     decrease the number of lawsuits that would be filed should 
     the PUMP Act pass.
       The PUMP Act is a balanced approach that meets the needs of 
     breastfeeding employees while also serving employers who make 
     reasonable attempts to follow the law. When employers have 
     clear standards to meet, and appropriate consequences if they 
     don't, employers have shown that they are able to provide the 
     break time and space that working mothers need. Complying 
     with break time and space requirements is simple, and 
     creative solutions exist in all industries. As described by 
     the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, employers 
     that support breastfeeding with affordable solutions realize 
     cost savings from increased loyalty and retention, reduced 
     sick time, and decreased health care and insurance costs.
       Our organization urges all members of Congress to vote in 
     support because the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would ensure 
     that all breastfeeding women have the full protection of the 
     law and ability to meet their basic needs while away from 
     their nursing babies during the workday. It is a simple 
     solution that promotes maternal and child health, as well as 
     the economic security of women and families.

[[Page H5801]]

       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Liz Morris,

                                          Center for WorkLife Law,
     UC Hastings College of the Law.
                                  ____


  Written Statement of Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner Co-Founder & Executive 
Director, MomRising Before the United States House of Representatives--
                           September 24, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of 
     the U.S. House of Representatives: MomsRising submits this 
     letter to the U.S. House of Representatives in full support 
     of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for 
     Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
       MomsRising is a national online and on-the-ground 
     grassroots organization with more than a million members 
     nationwide. We work on a broad range of issues and policies 
     to achieve economic security for all moms, women, and 
     families in the United States.
       While nearly four out of five U.S. mothers start out 
     breastfeeding, less than half are still breastfeeding at six 
     months postpartum. One of the main causes for the drop-off in 
     breastfeeding rates is the lack of break time and a private 
     place to pump in the workplace. MomsRising members around the 
     country have shared their stories and pictures about needing 
     better places to pump breastmilk.
       Currently, federal law requires employers for most hourly 
     wage-earning and some salaried employees (nonexempt workers) 
     reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom location to 
     express breast milk for one year after the child's birth, 
     This is a great first step, but it leaves millions of workers 
     without any protections at all. We must close the gap in the 
     law and expand protections for all breastfeeding mothers who 
     work outside of the home. The PUMP Act will close gaps and 
     include meaningful enforcement.
       Breastfeeding isn't just good for moms and babies. The fact 
     is that breastfeeding is good for the physical and economic 
     health of our nation. Recent studies have shown if mothers 
     could meet current medical recommendations for breastfeeding 
     it would save the US economy nearly $13 billion per year in 
     paediatric health costs and premature deaths.
       With three-quarters of moms being the primary or co-
     breadwinner these days, we must close the gap in existing law 
     and expand protections for all breastfeeding mothers who work 
     outside of the home. Sadly returning to work is too often a 
     significant barrier to breastfeeding, but we can do better.
       Please support all breastfeeding and working moms and 
     support the PUMP Act.
       Thank you for your consideration,

                                      Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner,

                                  Co-Founder & Executive Director,
                                                        MomRising.

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. As these organizations have 
demonstrated, without these protections, nursing mothers face serious 
health consequences, including the risk of painful illness and the 
inability to continue to breastfeed.
  Studies have shown the health benefits for breastfed infants. It is 
really important and can prevent other diseases.
  These basic protections would ensure that working moms who want to 
breastfeed can continue to do so and prevent nursing mothers from being 
singled out, ridiculed, or fired.
  This bill is an important step for work-family balance. We say we 
support families. Today is a vote for families, work-family balance, 
and mothers and infants.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' bipartisan vote.

                              {time}  0930

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Foxx for yielding me 
time to speak on this important issue.
  As a mother and a physician, I understand the tremendous value that 
nursing an infant brings both to the mother and the child.
  As the director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, I attended 
conferences and spoke on the need to encourage mothers to consider 
breastfeeding and the benefits of breastfeeding, be they nutritional, 
immunological, or the tremendous bond that occurs through 
breastfeeding.
  It is also why, despite being a working mother who was doing a 
general surgery internship and ophthalmology residency, I breast-fed 
both of my children. Because I was a working mother, that included 
expressing breast milk by pumping.
  I understand and I am supportive of the collaboration between 
employers and nursing mothers to have a private place to do so at their 
place of employment. I recognize that H.R. 3110 is trying to address 
this issue and provide accommodations for nursing mothers, which I 
wholeheartedly support, however, I feel the bill needs improvement.
  As it stands, H.R. 3110 puts a one-size-fits-all treatment of nursing 
accommodations for different businesses and industries. The bill also 
puts excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the 
nursing-accommodation requirements in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  These unreasonable penalties, combined with compliance challenges 
posed by the mandate, will lead to costly and protracted lawsuits 
because of their adversarial nature.
  The result will be delayed accommodations for working mothers. Rather 
than a collaborative arrangement between an employer and a nursing 
mother employee, this bill is punitive in nature.
  To address laws and H.R. 3110 and build on current law protections 
for nursing mothers, I submitted my bill, H.R. 4297, the Supporting 
Working Mothers Act, to the Rules Committee as an amendment.
  My bill is based on legislation introduced in a previous Congress by 
the sponsor of the bill we are debating today. Unfortunately, the 
majority refused to allow my amendment to even be debated on the floor.
  My amendment represents a workable, feasible, and reasonable approach 
to the Fair Labor Standards Act nursing-accommodation requirements.
  First, my amendment would have modified current law by providing 
coverage to white collar executive, administrative, and professional 
employees, while also maintaining current law coverage of hourly 
employees. My bill also preserved the 50-employee undue hardship 
exemption threshold as a safeguard for small businesses.
  These provisions would ensure coverage for over 80 percent of the 
women who are not currently covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act 
nursing-accommodation requirement.
  The bill we are debating today, H.R. 3110, significantly increases 
the penalties for employer violations that are required for 
breastfeeding accommodations, regardless of attempts at compliance.
  These penalties are disproportionate to the technical and 
unintentional Fair Labor Standards Act violations which could occur 
under this bill.
  My amendment would have preserved the authority of the Secretary of 
Labor to provide injunctive relief to address shortcomings and 
accommodations and assessable monetary penalties for repeat violations.
  However--and this is critical--my amendment also includes a provision 
establishing a collaborative process for employees and employers to 
create and improve accommodations in a timely fashion without relying 
on time consuming and expensive lawsuits.
  Because workplaces are not one size fits all, it is critical that 
legislation on nursing accommodations provide clear requirements that 
are adaptable to many kinds of workplaces, so that employers understand 
their obligations and are able to comply.
  Again, given my strong support of breastfeeding, pumping, and storing 
of breast milk, I am very disappointed that my amendment was not ruled 
in order by the majority and that Congress did not take this 
opportunity to address the flaws in H.R. 3110.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the co-chair 
of the Maternity Care Caucus and the lead Republican sponsor on the 
bill.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of our 
bipartisan bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
  Honestly, the whole goal of this legislation is to protect a nursing 
mother's ability to provide for her infant by pumping at work.
  And let me be clear, this is a business-friendly bill. This is 
current law. For those who are thinking we are shaking the Earth and 
doing something brand-new, it actually is current law. There were 
problems with the way the current law was written; it was actually put 
in the wrong place in code, and we are fixing that.
  So the way it is currently, you could be a mom who gets into working 
and

[[Page H5802]]

you have worked your way up into a career where you are salaried and 
you make a decent amount of money, but you were excluded from this 
legislation. You didn't have the right to expect this, even though 
other workers did.
  We are simply making some of those changes to make sure that folks 
who were not eligible for overtime, like that working mom, would be 
covered under current law.
  This bill gives businesses clarity and predictability and allows 
small businesses to claim undue hardship exemptions in recognition of 
the unique challenges that they face.
  Making sure our economy works is a huge priority to me, but we have 
to also recognize that working moms make up a significant portion--and 
should--of the workforce, and it is going to grow.
  I thank my colleagues for improving this bill to reflect its original 
intent with regard to businesses, namely, differentiating between large 
corporations and mom-and-pop operations.
  As a mom of three young kids myself, I understand finding the balance 
of raising kids, going to work, and just simply finding a place to pump 
while working.
  My first child was a 28-week preemie. It was imperative for her to 
have breast milk; we were told this by her doctors. She could not 
handle formula, and they said it is imperative that you do what you can 
to breastfeed her. And I joke I am going to write a book called, Oh, 
the places I have pumped. I have pumped in trains, on planes, in 
automobiles, in some poor low-ranking officer's office at the Pentagon, 
at a kibbutz in Israel on a codel; I mean, everywhere. And I can tell 
you, there are places that are clean and helpful, and it doesn't have 
to be like the Taj Mahal; you just need something that is not crammed 
in a public toilet where people are flushing over you.
  So on a really serious note, this is a critical piece of legislation 
that is going to empower women in the workforce to continue to provide 
for their families.
  Imagine a single mother not having that choice, she has to work, and 
maybe she wants to provide breast milk for her child or maybe she has 
to in a circumstance like mine. Making sure that mothers of infants and 
toddlers can continue to do this in the workforce and continue to join 
the workforce is absolutely vital.
  With women making up over half of our Nation's workforce, it is 
crucial that moms aren't forced to choose between going to their job or 
breastfeeding their child.
  With the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of this legislation, 
this bill seeks to help, not hinder, an employer's ability to provide a 
safe space for moms to pump.
  I am proud to help lead this bipartisan legislation with my 
colleague, Congresswoman Maloney, so moms in southwest Washington and 
across this country can feel secure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters 
of support from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Retail Federation.

                                               Chamber of Commerce
                                                            of the


                                     United States of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2021.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representative: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 3110, the 
     Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing 
     Mothers Act, as reported from the Education and Labor 
     Committee and as anticipated to be be improved via manager's 
     amendment. We hope this legislation will be further refined 
     as the legislative process continues to address the unique 
     issues related to the air travel sector.
       This legislation would update the Break Time for Nursing 
     Mothers Act, which became law in 2010. This law amended the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers with 
     more than 50 employees to provide a space for mothers to 
     either nurse or, more likely, to express breast milk. It also 
     requires employers to provide reasonable breaks for workers 
     to nurse. Because the legislation amended the FLSA's overtime 
     provision, it did not cover workers exempt from overtime. It 
     also lacks an enforcement mechanism.
       The PUMP Act would expand coverage to those workers 
     currently exempt and would provide workers with a remedy if 
     employers fail to provide accommodation or reasonable breaks. 
     The bill as passed by the Education and Labor Committee and 
     the manager's amendment would improve upon the introduced 
     version of H.R. 3110 in several key areas:
       Employers would be allowed 10 days to improve space 
     allocated for nursing mothers before employees could proceed 
     with seeking relief from the courts. This provision would 
     assure that more employees can get the accommodations they 
     need in a timely manner rather than triggering a drawn out, 
     costly, and uncertain litigation process.
       Department of Labor would be required to issue guidance 
     that is consistent with the existing information from the 
     Office on Women's Health of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services' website in order to assist employers with 
     compliance.
       The number of employees necessary for employers to be 
     eligible for the hardship exemption would be made consistent 
     with other provisions of law.
       This legislation should be improved to provide a reasonable 
     exemption for the air travel sector. The limitations on space 
     on airplanes would make compliance with this legislation 
     impractical and in some cases impossible. We hope this issue 
     is addressed as the bill makes its way through the 
     legislative process.
       The PUMP Act is a win-win for nursing mothers and the 
     companies that employ them. Employers would get clarity and a 
     way to avoid litigation, and nursing mothers would be able to 
     remain in the workforce. The bill as reported by the 
     Education and Labor Committee and augmented by the manager's 
     amendment is the product of collaborative negotiations 
     between employers and advocates for this bill. The Chamber is 
     pleased to strongly support this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Neil L. Bradley.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of the National Retail 
     Federation, I write to express our support for and urge the 
     passage of H.R. 3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal 
     Protections for Nursing Mothers (PUMP) Act.
       NRF, the world's largest retail trade association, 
     passionately advocates for the people, brands, policies and 
     ideas that help retail thrive. From its headquarters in 
     Washington, D.C., NRF empowers the industry that powers the 
     economy. Retail is the nation's largest private-sector 
     employer, contributing $3.9 trillion to annual GDP and 
     supporting one in four U.S. jobs--52 million working 
     Americans. For over a century, NRF has been a voice for every 
     retailer and every retail job, educating, inspiring and 
     communicating the powerful impact retail has on local 
     communities and global economies.
       For over a decade, federal law has required employers to 
     provide nursing mothers with reasonable break times to 
     express breast milk. Further, employers must designate a 
     facility in which to do so, that is shielded from view and 
     ``free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.'' As 
     enacted, only nursing mothers who are non-exempt from the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) were covered by the new 
     requirements. The PUMP Act would expand coverage to all 
     nursing mothers. This legislation also includes important 
     provisions that will ensure that employers are properly 
     notified if it is alleged that they are not providing 
     appropriate facilities for nursing, including a 10-calendar-
     day time period for employers to provide such facilities 
     before any litigation can commence.
       The PUMP Act is a sound piece of bipartisan legislation 
     that will allow nursing mothers to maintain their vital role 
     the American workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David French,
                       Senior Vice President Government Relations.

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Person Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member from North Carolina for yielding.
  Person Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the PUMP for Nursing 
Mothers Act, or should I call it the pump for nursing persons act? I 
can't keep up with the rules of this House.
  At a time, Person Speaker, when we have 10 million job openings, why 
does the Democrat majority have such contempt and disdain for 
struggling businesses, job creators, and employers?
  With businesses already suffering from endless regulations and the 
resulting costs passed on to consumers, not to mention being saddled 
with the vaccine mandates, endless COVID restrictions, why are 
Democrats relentlessly consumed with making things worse?

[[Page H5803]]

  The fact is, Democrats are economically illiterate. They don't 
understand that the government doesn't have any money, they can only 
take it from taxpayers, and businesses don't truly pay taxes or pay for 
regulations. They have two choices: Close or pass on those costs to 
consumers.
  Democrats believe that employers are abusing and exploiting their 
workers, and Democrats are working every day to punish them, with the 
result being more lost jobs, greater supply shortages, and higher 
inflation as we see around our country today.
  We all believe in an equal workplace for men and women, but I oppose 
legislation that falsely victimizes employees and is truly just another 
payout for trial lawyers, otherwise known as Democrat donors. They are 
seeking to exploit these excessive new penalties on businesses.
  The fact is employers want happy and productive employees. They are 
working hard to attract and retain those workers. And they are already 
making these accommodations without the heavy hand of the Federal 
Government.
  I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to visit a business or 
talk to an employer.
  This regulation was written by trial lawyers, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I will be doing the same.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), the co-chair of the Black 
Maternal Health Caucus.
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, every mom returning to the workforce 
after childbirth should be provided the time and space that they need 
to safely and privately pump breast milk at work.
  As a nurse, I understand how critical breastfeeding is to the health 
of both mom and baby.
  Without sufficient workplace protections, breastfeeding employees are 
at risk of serious and painful health consequences and reduced milk 
supply. They can also face harassment, docked pay, and even job loss.
  Yet each year, millions of workers, including teachers, nurses, 
farmworkers, and salaried employees are denied this basic protection 
due to an unintended loophole in current law.
  I am grateful to Chairwoman Maloney for her leadership, and I am 
proud to join her in leading the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act to close 
the coverage gap and ensure all breastfeeding moms are protected and 
supported as they return to work.
  This bill is bipartisan and has a broad coalition of support from 
public health, labor, and civil rights groups, as well as from the 
business community.
  It is also urgently needed, providing commonsense, necessary 
protections for working moms, as well as more clarity and 
predictability for employers.
  Returning to work after childbirth already poses many inherent 
challenges for moms and their families, and we must remove barriers for 
parents making the best choices for their families and themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on this important 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three letters in support of 
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act from the National Education 
Association, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the 
March of Dimes.


                               National Education Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The 3 million members of the National 
     Education Association, who educate and support 50 million 
     students across the nation, urge you to vote YES on the 
     Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing 
     Mothers Act, H.R. 3110. Votes on this issue may be included 
     in the NEA Report Card for the 117th Congress.
       The 2010 Break Time law provided important protections that 
     ensured employees would have reasonable break time and a 
     private place to pump breast milk. However, the law excludes 
     certain categories of employees, including educators; in 
     fact, nearly one in four women of childbearing age is not 
     covered by the Break Time law. The PUMP Act would:
       Protect the nearly 9 million employees who are not now 
     covered by the Break Time law;
       Require employers to provide reasonable break time and a 
     private, non-bathroom space for breastfeeding employees to 
     pump during the workday;
       Provide employers with clarity on when pumping time must be 
     paid and when it may be unpaid, leaving in place existing law 
     protecting many salaried workers and clarifying that any time 
     spent pumping while the employee is working must be counted 
     as hours worked; and
       Ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that 
     are available for other violations of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act.
       Decades of scientific research tell us that breastfeeding 
     helps put children on the path to life-long health and 
     wellness. This strong foundation, in turn, can pave the way 
     for their future success in school. The PUMP Act supports 
     children's early development, while also recognizing that 
     breastfeeding mothers are crucial breadwinners for their 
     families. We urge you to vote YES on the PUMP Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Marc Egan,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
     National Education Association.
                                  ____

                                               September 24, 2021.
       Dear Members of Congress: The National Partnership for 
     Women & Families is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy 
     organization committed to improving the lives of women and 
     families by achieving equity for all women. Since our 
     creation as the Women's Legal Defense Fund in 1971, we have 
     fought for every significant advance for equal opportunity in 
     the workplace, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 
     1978 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). We 
     write in strong support of H.R. 3110, Providing Urgent 
     Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act. This 
     bipartisan legislation will support breastfeeding employees 
     and their families, improving infant health and the economic 
     security of women and families.
       Once pregnant workers return to the workplace after giving 
     birth, many will need the ability to pump breastmilk during 
     the workday. While the Affordable Care Act requires employers 
     to provide reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom 
     space for certain breastfeeding employees to pump, persistent 
     coverage gaps exist. Roughly one in four women of 
     childbearing age are not covered by current law. Since 
     breastfeeding is associated with a host of improved health 
     outcomes, expanding these protections to the 9 million 
     workers currently excluded from the Break Time for Nursing 
     Mothers law is essential to support mothers in the workplace. 
     In addition to closing the coverage gap, the PUMP Act will 
     also clarify for employers when pumping time must be paid and 
     when it may be unpaid, and extend the remedies available for 
     other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act to nursing 
     employees, ensuring that working parents' rights are 
     protected.
       The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is crucial because it will 
     fill the gaps in the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law, 
     allowing breastfeeding employees to remain in the workforce 
     while keeping their families healthy. It is time to clarify 
     and strengthen existing federal protections for breastfeeding 
     employees by passing the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                Debra L. Ness,

                                   President, National Partnership
     for Women & Families.
                                  ____



                                               March of Dimes,

                                               September 24, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Leader Schumer and 
     Leader McConnell: On behalf of March of Dimes, the nonprofit 
     organization leading the fight for the health of all moms and 
     babies, we urge swift passage of the bi-partisan Providing 
     Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act 
     (S. 1658/H.R. 3110).
       We began that fight more than 80 years ago as an 
     organization dedicated to eradicating polio in the U.S., a 
     goal that we achieved. We continue that fight today as we 
     work to address some of the biggest threats to moms and 
     babies, such as premature birth and maternal mortality, 
     through research, education, programs and advocacy.
       March of Dimes' ongoing work to improve maternal and infant 
     health is more important than ever as our nation is in the 
     midst of a dire maternal and infant health crisis. Rates of 
     preterm birth are increasing, the U.S. is one of the most 
     dangerous places to give birth in the developed world, and 
     there are unacceptable disparities in birth outcomes between 
     women and infants of color and their White peers. We also 
     know, the health and well-being of mothers and infants are 
     inextricably linked. By improving the health of, and 
     conditions for, women before, during and between pregnancies, 
     we can improve outcomes for both them and their infants. But 
     we have many challenges before us.
       One of those challenges is ensuring the ability for a 
     mother to feed her infant after returning to the workplace. 
     When a new mother returns to work after having a baby,

[[Page H5804]]

     she will need continued support in the workplace to ensure 
     she can continue to breastfeed her child if she chooses. 
     Exclusive breastfeeding has a significant impact the health 
     of the baby, as well as benefits for moms. However, returning 
     to work can make continuing the breastfeeding relationship 
     between mothers and their infants very difficult, especially 
     if employers don't provide employees with adequate break time 
     and an appropriate space to express breastmilk during the 
     workday.
       The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included provisions that 
     required certain employers to provide break time and a place 
     for most hourly wage-earning and some salaried employee to 
     pump at work. The Providing Urgent Maternal Protections 
     (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act would extend those supports to 
     the 9 million employees that were excluded from the ACA's 
     protections and provide for enforcement of this benefit. 
     These nurses, teachers, retail workers, and managers across a 
     number of industries deserve the same protections as other 
     working mothers. March of Dimes proudly endorses the PUMP for 
     Nursing Mothers Act (S. 1658/H.R. 3110).
       Thank you again for the opportunity to express March of 
     Dimes' strong support for this bipartisan legislation under 
     consideration, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (S. 1658/H.R. 
     3110). We urge the swift advancement of this important bill 
     and look forward to its passage.
           Sincerely,

                                               Stacey Brayboy,

                              Senior Vice President, Public Policy
                                             & Government Affairs.

  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank these groups for their support 
of the bill and for their tireless efforts on behalf of working moms.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 3110, the PUMP Act.
  Americans want nursing mothers to have adequate provisions in the 
workplace. The fact is, they are already provided in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  The bill before us consists of unreasonable burdens on employers and 
penalties that will end up disincentivizing job creation.
  At the same time that nursing mothers deserve protections, employers 
deserve allowances for flexibility in their workplace.
  We are in the midst of an economic, supply chain, and employment 
crisis. We don't need to put more hurdles in the way of businesses and 
employment.
  When I am in my district and I speak to business owners all around my 
district, the number one thing I hear is we cannot find enough workers. 
Why are we going to put more strain on them?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the co-chair of the 
Maternity Care Caucus.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the PUMP Act 
to expand workplace protections for breastfeeding moms and ensure they 
have access to appropriate and necessary accommodations.
  Decades of research have shown that breastfeeding is one of the most 
cost-effective interventions for improving maternal and child health.
  Compared with formula-fed children, breastfed babies have a reduced 
risk of ear, skin, stomach, and respiratory infections, sudden infant 
death syndrome, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, and childhood 
leukemia.
  However, while 84 percent of U.S. babies are breastfed at birth, only 
25 percent are still exclusively breastfed at 6 months of age.
  I commend my colleague, Carolyn Maloney, for her career-long 
dedication to improving these breastfeeding statistics.
  Congresswoman Maloney's 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers law 
provided the first critical protections to ensure mothers would have 
reasonable break times and a private place to pump breast milk.

                              {time}  0945

  Mothers with this access to workplace support have lower healthcare 
costs, absenteeism, and turnover and show improved job morale, 
satisfaction, and productivity.
  However, that law unintentionally excluded 9 million women from these 
workplace protections, including teachers, software engineers, and many 
nurses.
  Expanding workplace protections to include these women is important 
because research clearly shows that without protections, breastfeeding 
employees have increased risk of painful illness and infection, 
diminished milk supply, and are more likely to stop breastfeeding 
early.
  As cochair of both the Maternity Care Caucus and the Public Health 
Caucus, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the PUMP Act, which 
is a commonsense solution to eliminating workplace barriers that 
interfere with successful breastfeeding.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is critical to ensuring all mothers 
have the opportunity to reach their personal breastfeeding goals to 
protect their babies, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the 
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Written Statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Before the 
       United States House of Representatives, September 27, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of 
     the U.S. House of Representatives: The Academy of Nutrition 
     and Dietetics submits this letter to the U.S. House of 
     Representatives in full support of the Providing Urgent 
     Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 
     3110).
       Representing more than 112,000 credentialed nutrition and 
     dietetics practitioners, the Academy of Nutrition and 
     Dietetics is the world's largest organization of food and 
     nutrition professionals. The Academy is committed to 
     improving the nation's health and advancing the profession of 
     dietetics through research, education and advocacy. Our 
     vision is a world where all people thrive through the 
     transformative power of food and nutrition. Our mission is to 
     accelerate improvements in global health and well-being 
     through food and nutrition.
       The Academy's impact goals include increasing equitable 
     access to food, nutrition and other life-style related 
     services. As an organization that is overwhelmingly composed 
     of women in the workforce, the struggle to balance 
     professional responsibilities and motherhood is well-known to 
     our members as is the nutritional case for breastfeeding and 
     its continuance despite returning to work. Thus, for the 
     Academy, the issue of workplace accommodations for 
     breastfeeding women is both personal to our members and their 
     health and professional given the unquestionably essential 
     role of human milk in early nutrition for infants.
       For over a decade--truly since the passage of the 
     Affordable Care Act--the Academy has advocated for 
     legislation addressing workplace accommodations for mothers 
     doing their best to meet the demands of earning a wage, 
     caring for their infants and protecting their own health but 
     who work for employers not included in existing law.
       Women choosing to continue breastfeeding after returning to 
     work should be supported in this very personal yet 
     consequential decision that carries life-long outcomes for 
     both mom and infant.
       It is unfortunate that such an important decision is often 
     not supported or understood by employers who benefit 
     directly. In one study, only 40 percent of mothers reported 
     having access to both break time and a private space to pump 
     while on the job. There is also inconsistency regarding how 
     employers meet legal requirements to accommodate 
     breastfeeding workers, even for those currently covered by 
     the law. As shared in the media, stories from women employees 
     report janitorial and other closets as the designated pumping 
     location and reveal barriers faced by moms requesting an 
     unpaid break.
       A key recommendation of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines 
     for Americans is, ``For about the first 6 months of life, 
     exclusively feed infants human milk. Sadly, among women who 
     work full-time, only 10% of those who started breastfeeding 
     their babies will still be breastfeeding by the time their 
     infant reaches six-month of age. The anticipation and 
     apprehension associated with how to continue to breastfeed 
     after returning to work prevents some moms from even 
     initiating breastfeeding.
       There are three key reasons that Congress should pass the 
     PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act: 1) Human milk offers superior 
     nutrition and health benefits compared to infant formula, 2) 
     employers benefit from breastfeeding moms who return to work 
     and 3) increasing breastfeeding initiation and duration are 
     public health priorities of the United States. Examining the 
     rationale more closely demonstrates the positive outcomes 
     expected with passage of the bill.
     1. Human Milk Offers Superior Nutrition and Health Benefits 
         Compared to Infant Formula
       The Academy has previously noted that ``. . . exclusive 
     breastfeeding provides optimal nutrition and health 
     protection for the first 6 months of life and breastfeeding 
     with complementary foods from 6 months until at least 12 
     months of age is the ideal feeding pattern for infants. 
     Breastfeeding is an important public health strategy for 
     improving infant and child morbidity and mortality, improving 
     maternal morbidity, and helping to control health care costs. 
     Breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of otitis 
     media, gastroenteritis, respiratory illness, sudden infant 
     death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, obesity, and 
     hypertension. Breastfeeding is also associated with improved 
     maternal outcomes, including a reduced risk of breast and 
     ovarian cancer, type

[[Page H5805]]

     2 diabetes, and postpartum depression. These reductions in 
     acute and chronic illness help to decrease health care 
     related expenses and productive time lost from work.
     2. Employers Benefit from Breastfeeding Moms Who Return to 
         Work
       Aside from nutrition and the health benefits to the mother 
     and baby, employers gain from women who continue to 
     breastfeed after returning to work. First, breastfeeding 
     employees miss work less often. One-day absences to care for 
     a sick infant or child happen twice as often for mothers who 
     chose to feed their infants formula. Second, since 
     breastfeeding is associated with lower health care costs for 
     mother and baby, employers also benefit from lower medical 
     insurance claims. One insurance company, CIGNA, found that 
     343 employees participating in a worksite lactation support 
     program resulted in an annual savings of $240,000 in health 
     care expenses, 62 percent fewer prescriptions and $60,000 
     savings related to absenteeism rates over a two-year period. 
     Finally, for businesses that offer a worksite lactation 
     program, there are even greater tangible benefits to the 
     employer. These include lower turnover rates and absenteeism 
     for working women, fathers and partners; additional health 
     care savings; higher productivity and loyalty; as well as a 
     positive public image.
     3. Increasing Breastfeeding Initiation and Duration are 
         Public Health Priorities of the United States
       Across federal agencies, significant resources are 
     appropriated and authorized to encourage mothers to initiate 
     breastfeeding and to continue after returning to work. A few 
     examples include:


                       Health and Human Services

       In 2011 a landmark policy document, The Surgeon General's 
     Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding, outlined measurable 
     goals and objectives for stakeholders' efforts to align 
     national policy with public health goals. While progress has 
     been made over the past decade because of the recommended 
     actions, there continue to be gaps and opportunities to 
     address policies that support breastfeeding including those 
     related to employment and the workforce.
       The Office of Women's Health offers support for women 
     through published guidance and notably for employers through 
     its ``Business Case for Breastfeeding.''


                     U.S. Department of Agriculture

       The Women, Infants and Children's Program receives 
     appropriated funds to support its peer counseling program and 
     the program extends participation to women who continue to 
     breastfeed for one-year post-partum.
       The 2020-2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans led by 
     the USDA recently added new recommendations for children from 
     birth to two years of age. As noted, a key recommendation is 
     that for the first 6 months of life, infants should be fed 
     human milk. After 6 months of life, complementary foods and 
     breastfeeding are recommended until one year of age.


               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

       The Centers CDC has made breastfeeding a public health 
     priority and encourages state health departments, hospitals 
     and local communities to implement public health goals and 
     align resources to support breastfeeding rates for 
     communities of color. ``Because of the importance of 
     breastfeeding for the health of mothers and babies, CDC 
     supports breastfeeding through hospital initiatives, work 
     site accommodation, continuity of care, and community support 
     initiatives.''
       The federal government advocates for breastfeeding and its 
     continuance for working women, but laws and regulations don't 
     make it easy for women in all sectors of the workforce to 
     fulfill breastfeeding public health goals and objectives.
     Why will the PUMP Act help?
       It is reasonable to expect that if breastfeeding and 
     workplace accommodations are seen as public health priorities 
     by the federal government and tax-payer dollars are used to 
     fund programs designed to encourage and support breastfeeding 
     for the public, that policies protecting and advancing the 
     interest of the government's investment should be 
     implemented. The PUMP Act is one such policy that will 
     eliminate barriers for women who are teachers, flight 
     attendants and other exempt workers.
       The bi-partisan PUMP Act will bring equity to nearly nine 
     million women in the workforce and their families who 
     currently lack protections as they seek to provide 
     recommended nutrition to their new babies.
       Women in the workforce are striving for economic stability 
     to help support their families. The country benefits from 
     their contributions to our economy. Instead of focusing on 
     what happens when employees need unpaid time to feed their 
     baby as their doctor, nutrition experts, and the U.S. 
     government recommend, consider what happens and the cost to 
     our nation when they do not. Through WIC, the U.S. government 
     provides services to approximately 53 percent of all U.S. 
     infants. Infant formula is the most expensive item in WIC 
     food packages and costs to the government exceeded $927 
     million in fiscal year 2010. The direct cost to the 
     government of providing infant formula and the related 
     indirect cost of employee turn-over, absenteeism and most 
     importantly, the increased health care costs of formula-fed 
     infants make this bill a win for all parties and protects the 
     economic interest of the U.S.
       Perhaps then Federal Reserve Chair and current Secretary of 
     Treasury Janet Yellen said it best in an essay following her 
     2017 remarks at the ``125 Years of Women at Brown 
     Conference'' sponsored by Brown University in Providence, 
     Rhode Island:

       ``. . . a number of factors appear to be holding women 
     back, including the difficulty women currently have in trying 
     to combine their careers with other aspects of their lives, 
     including caregiving. In looking to solutions, we should 
     consider improvements to work environments and policies that 
     benefit not only women, but all workers. Pursuing such a 
     strategy would be in keeping with the story of the rise in 
     women's involvement in the workforce, which has contributed 
     not only to their own well-being but more broadly to the 
     welfare and prosperity of our country.''

       The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics urges all members of 
     Congress to vote in support of this bill because it is the 
     right step to support babies, mothers, employers and 
     ultimately the health and prosperity of our nation.
       Thank you for your consideration.
     Jeanne Blankenship, MS RDN,
       Vice President, Policy Initiatives and Advocacy, Academy of 
     Nutrition and Dietetics.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 leaves a whole host of unanswered questions 
for employers regarding their obligations under the bill as written. 
H.R. 3110 threatens job creators with disproportionate penalties for 
technical or unintentional violations of the FLSA's accommodation 
requirements.
  For example, are employers required to build a separate room to 
provide these accommodations?
  H.R. 3110 fails to answer this question or the circumstances and 
specifications an employer would need to know to comply with such a 
requirement, or how such requirements would interact with other Federal 
laws.
  For instance, the bill does not clarify whether the space must be 
compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, accessibility 
requirements, or how it will fit in with the ADA requirements, such as 
clear path of travel. Nor does the legislation give appropriate 
guidance as to whether the space must be permanent or temporary. In 
addition, the remedies in H.R. 3110 go far beyond what is recoverable 
with respect to other proven wage-and-hour and break violations under 
both Federal law and State laws.
  The expansion of remedies in the bill will increase litigation and 
result in a financial windfall for trial lawyers. But these penalties 
do not address the employees' main interest in obtaining appropriate 
break time and space. Expanded monetary damages will undoubtedly lead 
to more litigation and the additional delays that litigation brings in 
already overburdened courts. It also should be noted that the 
Department of Labor is better suited to enforce technical violations of 
the FLSA quickly and effectively; litigation is no solution.
  DOL has institutional knowledge of Federal labor laws, including the 
FLSA, and is equipped to provide accurate guidance to employers.
  To understand the implications of H.R. 3110, one only needs to look 
at the proliferation of lawsuits for ``gotcha'' technical violations 
throughout various Federal and State wage-and-hour laws or the ADA to 
recognize that costly litigation will follow and positive results for 
employees will be delayed.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights 
and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and 
Labor.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
bipartisan PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
  Since 2010, the Affordable Care Act has required employers to provide 
nursing mothers with break time to express milk, as well as access to a 
private non-bathroom space for pumping.
  Although this was a significant improvement for working moms--one 
that I didn't have when I was breastfeeding my babies--the law still 
left 9 million workers uncovered, including teachers, agriculture 
workers, engineers, and others.
  This coverage gap is unacceptable, and it means that each year 
millions of parents who choose to breastfeed must

[[Page H5806]]

decide between the health of their child and maintaining employment. 
The coverage gap has also disproportionately harmed Black and brown 
women, who represent 12 percent of the workforce but nearly 20 percent 
of women of childbearing age who are not covered by the existing break 
time provision.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will address this coverage gap by 
simply amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protections to 
workers who are not currently covered.
  As Representative Herrara Beutler explained, this is current law. We 
are just closing a gap that is leaving too many nursing moms out. It 
will also clarify that if a worker is not relieved of their duties 
during the time spent pumping, then those hours must count as hours 
worked.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rights of 
women in the workplace and to help their families by joining me in 
voting for the bipartisan PUMP Act.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of the 
bill from the United States Breastfeeding Committee.

   Written Statement of Nikia Sankofa Executive Director of the U.S. 
       Breastfeeding Committee Before the United States House of 
                  Representatives--September 24, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McCarthy, and all 
     members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. 
     Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) submits this letter to the 
     U.S. House of Representatives in full support of the 
     Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing 
     Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).
       The USBC is a coalition of more than 100 national 
     nonprofits, breastfeeding coalitions, community-based 
     organizations, and federal agency partners that support a 
     shared mission to drive collaborative efforts for policy and 
     practices that create a landscape of breastfeeding support 
     across the United States. We are committed to ensuring that 
     all families in the U.S. have the support, resources, and 
     accommodations to achieve their breastfeeding goals in the 
     communities where they live, learn, work, and play.
       We know that the vast majority of people become parents 
     during their lifetime, and their needs and the needs of their 
     infants are neither surprising nor difficult to meet if we 
     plan appropriately. A simple and common-sense policy solution 
     to address ongoing workplace barriers and inequities is 
     within the reach of Congress through the Providing Urgent 
     Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 
     3110), which strengthens the existing Break Time for Nursing 
     Mothers law and has bipartisan and bicameral support.


                Human Milk: A Proven Prevention Strategy

       Breastfeeding is a primary prevention strategy that builds 
     a foundation for life-long health and wellness, adapting 
     overtime to meet the changing needs of the growing child. The 
     evidence for the value of human milk feeding to overall 
     health is scientific, robust, and continually being 
     reaffirmed by new researcher.
       Human milk feeding is proven to reduce the risk of a range 
     of illnesses and conditions for infants and mothers. Compared 
     with commercial milk formula fed children, breastfed infants 
     have a reduced risk of ear, skin, stomach, and respiratory 
     infections; diarrhea; and sudden infant death syndrome. In 
     the longer term, breastfed children have a reduced risk of 
     obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, and childhood 
     leukemia. Women who breastfed their children have a reduced 
     long-term risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, 
     and breast and ovarian cancers. The American Academy of 
     Pediatrics recommends infants be exclusively breastfed for 
     about 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing 
     complementary foods for at least 1 year.


                          Barriers to Success

       The great majority of pregnant women and new parents want 
     to breastfeed, but significant barriers in the community, 
     health care, and employment settings can impede breastfeeding 
     success. In 2017, the national breastfeeding initiation rate 
     among infants was 84.1 percent, representing a 13.8 percent 
     increase from 2001. However, by six months of age, only 25.6 
     percent of U.S. infants exclusively breastfeed. Despite 
     overall increases in breastfeeding initiation and duration, 
     deep racial, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities in 
     breastfeeding rates persist. Compared to national averages, 
     only 73.7 percent of Black infants and 80.7 percent of Native 
     American infants are ever breastfed, contributing to 
     inequalities in maternal and infant health outcomes. 
     Furthermore, a distressing 60 percent of mothers report that 
     they did not breastfeed for as long as they intended.
       Structural and environmental barriers can make it difficult 
     or impossible for families to establish an adequate milk 
     supply to sustain human milk feeding at medically recommended 
     levels. For many families, rather than being a matter of 
     personal choice, infant feeding practice is informed by 
     circumstance.
       More than half of mothers enter or return to the labor 
     force before their children turn one year old, with as many 
     as one in four women returning within just two weeks of 
     giving birth. When back at work or school, many discover that 
     they are unable to pump breast milk as frequently as 
     necessary or they have no choice but to pump in an unsanitary 
     or unsafe location, such as a bathroom. Economically-
     marginalized women and non-white women are more likely to 
     return to work earlier than their more affluent white 
     counterparts. Without necessary accommodations, they are too 
     often unable to produce enough milk for a caregiver to feed 
     their child during separations and may not be able to 
     maintain their milk supply.
       Breastfeeding families throughout the United States are 
     facing barriers that make it difficult or impossible to start 
     or continue breastfeeding--but it does not have to be this 
     way. Public health initiatives, including legal and policy 
     interventions and approaches designed to enable more infants 
     to breastfeed, have the potential to markedly improve 
     population health.


        Current Laws and Simple Accommodations Across Industries

       The Break Time for Nursing Mothers law (Break Time law), 
     passed in 2010, provides critical protections to ensure that 
     employees have reasonable break time and a safe, private 
     place to pump breast milk. All the same strategies that 
     businesses use for any other type of break time, such as rest 
     breaks, meal breaks, or medical breaks can be utilized to 
     support breastfeeding employees.
       Businesses of all sizes and in every industry have found 
     simple, cost-effective ways to meet the needs of their 
     breastfeeding employees as well as their business. The 
     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office on 
     Women's Health hosts the Supporting Nursing Moms at Work 
     resource, which provides a critical link between the need for 
     workplace support for breastfeeding families and the need for 
     implementation guidance for their employers. The online 
     resource provides a user-friendly tool that employers can use 
     to identify and implement industry-specific solutions to 
     providing time and space accommodations that work from farm 
     fields to grocery stores, and restaurants to offices. These 
     examples are already helping employers and employees identify 
     practical solutions that work for their business.
       In many workspaces, compliance is as simple as placing 
     butcher paper or a curtain over a window in a managers' 
     office. In outdoor worksites, pop up tents or the cab of a 
     construction vehicle are used to meet the needs of 
     breastfeeding employees. To be functional, the pumping space 
     simply needs to be furnished with seating and a flat surface 
     such as a desk, small table, or shelf for the breast pump. As 
     long as the space is available each time the breastfeeding 
     employee needs it, the employer is meeting the requirements 
     of the law. If there are no breastfeeding employees, the 
     employer does not need to maintain a space.


               Gaps in Current Law and Impact on Families

       Unfortunately, the placement of the Break Time law within 
     section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) resulted 
     in nearly 9 million women--nearly one in four women of 
     childbearing age--being excluded from coverage. Those left 
     unprotected include teachers, software engineers, and many 
     nurses, among others. Without these protections, 
     breastfeeding employees face serious health consequences, 
     including risk of painful illness and infection, diminished 
     milk supply, or in ability to continue breastfeeding.
       Over the past decade we have learned how to make 
     breastfeeding and employment work, but the significant 
     coverage gaps in the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law mean 
     that workplace breastfeeding accommodation implementation is 
     radically inconsistent. Employees of the same company and in 
     the same building frequently do not have access to the same 
     accommodations, and to figure out who must be accommodated 
     can be complicated for businesses.
       In addition, little recourse is available for employees who 
     are covered by the Break Time law to ensure they can use 
     their rights. Section 7(r) of the FLSA does not specify any 
     penalties if an employer is found to have violated the break 
     time for nursing mothers requirements. This means that in 
     most instances, an employee may only bring an action for 
     unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation and an 
     additional equal amount in liquidated damages. According to 
     the Request for Information on the Break Time for Nursing 
     Mothers provision, which includes the Department of Labor's 
     preliminary interpretations of the law, ``Because employers 
     are not required to compensate employees for break time to 
     express breastmilk, in most circumstances there will not be 
     any unpaid minimum wage or overtime compensation associated 
     with the failure to provide such breaks.


 A Bipartisan Solution to Simplify Existing Law: the PUMP for Nursing 
                              Mothers Act

       A policy solution with bipartisan support, the PUMP Act 
     would support breastfeeding employees while clarifying 
     implementation for employers across the nation. The bill 
     would strengthen the 2010 Break Time law by closing the 
     coverage gap and providing remedies for nursing mothers that 
     are available for other violations of the FLSA.
       The Break Time for Nursing Mothers provision is written 
     with language that provides

[[Page H5807]]

     immense flexibility and does not require the construction of 
     a permanent, dedicated lactation space. The PUMP for Nursing 
     Mothers Act would maintain this flexibility. More than half 
     of all states have enacted legislation that impacts 
     breastfeeding employees. For many of these states, the PUMP 
     for Nursing Mothers Act would have little to no impact on 
     employer requirements.
       For over ten years, the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee has 
     worked with organizations and government agencies on this 
     issue. We have documented the experiences of workers and 
     employers, seen the innovative solutions created by 
     businesses of all sizes, and identified the legislative gaps 
     that need to be addressed. After more than a decade of 
     raising awareness and mobilizing action, one thing is clear: 
     America needs the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
       By aligning federal law with the needs of families and 
     ensuring that employers have the comprehensive resources and 
     support that they need, we can create a better tomorrow 
     together.
       Thank you for your consideration.

                                                Nikia Sankofa,

                                               Executive Director,
                                     U.S. Breastfeeding Committee.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 3110 claim the bill merely fills 
unintended gaps in the nursing-accommodation requirements signed into 
law in 2010, but this description is not accurate.
  H.R. 3110 imposes a flawed scheme full of unreasonable expanded 
mandates, including overly-broad coverage coupled with gratuitous and 
disproportionate penalties. The bill expands the Fair Labor Standards 
Act's coverage of break time for nursing mothers to all 143 million 
employees covered by the act. As a result, H.R. 3110 will require one-
size-fits-all nursing accommodations and impose substantial compliance 
burdens on a wide variety of workplaces and industries.
  Admitting this problem in the underlying bill, the manager's 
amendment attempts to mitigate the bill's requirements so that they are 
compatible with ensuring safety and security for airline passengers and 
flight crews.
  H.R. 3110 requires that airline employees have access to an enclosed 
area for pumping breast milk, even though aircrafts designs are 
regulated by the FAA for safety, security, and reliability, with 
limited ability to add additional enclosed space. Remote and rural 
airports also face unique challenges because of the smaller planes in 
use at those airports. It is even more challenging to provide a private 
space in a commercial aircraft other than a bathroom, as mandated by 
H.R. 3110.
  Additionally, many of these planes have small flight crews with few 
redundancies in duties. Under the bill, they would be hard-pressed to 
maintain appropriate staffing levels and access to services. Exposing 
businesses to inflexible and unworkable requirements, coupled with 
increased penalties for alleged violations, will clearly create new 
incentives for trial lawyers.
  H.R. 3110 will only encourage trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of 
questionable validity targeting unsuspecting business owners. 
Supporters of H.R. 3110 say the bill is about providing women with 
better accommodations in the workplace, but the truth is the bill fails 
to live up to that promise.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, consideration of H.R. 3110 marks the latest in a 
series of affronts to small businesses perpetuated by House Democrats 
throughout the 117th Congress. Last month, Democrat members of the 
Committee on Education and Labor voted to increase drastically the 
penalties on employers, including a 512 percent increase in 
Occupational Safety and Health Act penalties and a whopping 900 percent 
increase in Fair Labor Standards Act penalties on job creators, 
including small businesses.
  Democrats also voted to authorize the National Labor Relations Board 
to levy $50,000 and $100,000 fines on small business owners for 
business activities that are currently lawful.
  Republican Members offered several amendments at the committee's 
reconciliation markup to exempt small businesses from the devastating 
impacts of those provisions. However, these commonsense amendments were 
voted down by committee Democrats on party-line votes.
  The bill we are debating today was reported out of committee with 
disturbing implications for smaller employers. Currently under the 
FLSA, businesses with fewer than 50 employees may demonstrate that the 
FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirements would impose an undue 
hardship. The FLSA's unique hardship provision is an affirmative 
defense to claims that small businesses must demonstrate in court.
  Committee Democrats chose to cut the undue hardship exemption in half 
to fewer than 25 employees. While this Democrat affront to small 
business was corrected in the manager's amendment, more changes are 
necessary to protect small businesses fully.
  H.R. 3110 imposes excessive penalties for minor or technical 
violations of the FLSA's nursing-accommodation requirement, while 
failing to anticipate workplace realities in providing accommodations. 
These excessive penalties, combined with the high probability of minor 
or unintended infractions related to compliance with a complex mandate 
on hundreds of thousands of new businesses, will lead to a 
proliferation of expensive and protracted lawsuits, resulting in 
delayed accommodations for workers.
  In contrast to the shortcomings of H.R. 3110, Dr. Miller-Meeks 
submitted a responsible substitute amendment for consideration, which 
implements commonsense and workable alterations to the FLSA's nursing-
accommodation requirements. The Miller-Meeks' amendment adds nursing 
accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or 
professional employees while preserving FLSA treatment of unique and 
disparate workplaces.
  Her amendment also preserves the Secretary of Labor's FLSA 
enforcement authority to address shortcomings in workplace 
accommodations through injunctive relief or levy civil monetary 
penalties against repeat and willful violators.
  Dr. Miller-Meeks' amendment would not only ensure that the needs of 
small businesses are protected, but would also update FLSA nursing-
accommodation requirements in a way that meets the needs of both 
mothers and employers.
  It is disappointing and unfortunate that the Democrat leadership 
prevented the Miller-Meeks' amendment from being considered today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we 
will instruct the Committee on Education and Labor to consider an 
amendment to exempt certain industries with unique workplace 
environments from the requirements in the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 imposes one-size-fits-all 
nursing accommodation requirements on different kinds of work 
environments, including those found in the airline, shipping, and 
agriculture industries.
  As a mother of two who nursed both children while working, I 
understand the importance of having these accommodations in the 
workplace.
  Under current law, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides hourly 
employees with access to accommodations while providing for certain 
industry and job specific exemptions. This approach includes special 
protections to include the smallest of farms, which are not 
proportionally impacted by regulatory mandates such as the one we are 
debating today.

[[Page H5808]]

  The mandate in H.R. 3110 would impose the same requirements on all 
143 million employees covered under the FLSA. This would impose 
substantial compliance challenges and introduce safety concerns based 
on the nature of business operations in certain settings. For example, 
this would fail to account for the unique working conditions found in 
the aviation industry.
  H.R. 3110 requires that airline employees, who are currently exempt 
from FLSA breastfeeding accommodation requirements, have access to a 
space for pumping breast milk. This is despite the fact that aircraft 
designs are regulated by the FAA for safety and reliability purposes 
with limited ability to add additional private spaces.
  Modification of aircraft space would be prohibitively expensive and 
require the removal of airline seats. This requirement is even more 
challenging for smaller planes with fewer passenger seats that service 
regional airports.
  Additionally, pilot and flight attendant duties are heavily regulated 
by the FAA with few redundancies in duties among staff, complicating 
the ability of aviation businesses to maintain appropriate staffing 
levels and access to services when faced with inflexible government-
mandated breaks.
  Democrats acknowledged this problem in their manager's amendment to 
H.R. 3110 but failed to mitigate the negative impacts the bill would 
have on critical passenger safety and security functions, both on the 
ground and during flight.
  Because workplaces are not one-size-fits-all, it is critical that any 
legislation in this area preserves flexibility for airline, shipping, 
and small farm employers to work with their employees to develop best 
practices in meeting individual workplace needs.
  Sweeping and overly prescriptive requirements that do not adequately 
address both the workplace environment and workplace needs will not 
lead to the best results for working mothers.
  Nursing mother accommodations should be encouraged, and the ongoing 
efforts of businessowners to ensure access for their workers are to be 
applauded and supported.
  I am going to offer this motion to recommit to ensure certain 
businesses have the flexibility to be able to develop nursing 
accommodations that meet the needs of their employees while accounting 
for unique working environments.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 is not the right way to empower women in the 
workplace.
  I support expanding flexible nursing accommodations in the workplace 
for women, but not in such a way that will unnecessarily increase 
liability for employers without helping nursing mothers.
  Furthermore, this bill levels excessive penalties for minor technical 
violations, opening our job creators to expensive and spurious 
lawsuits.
  Dr. Miller-Meeks' Supporting Working Mothers amendment is a 
responsible alternative. It expands nursing accommodation coverage to a 
variety of workplaces but also maintains exceptions for unique 
workplaces.
  That is the kind of flexible pro-woman and pro-jobs solution we need. 
We have had enough of Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach and overly 
broad mandates that hurt the very job creators we are relying on to 
help our economy recover from this pandemic. It is very disappointing 
that the majority denied debate on a practical alternative that will 
meet the needs of working mothers.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3110. 
This bill would do much more harm than good. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters 
in support of the bill from the AFSCME and the Association of Flight 
Attendants-CWA.
         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to vote yes on the PUMP for 
     Nursing Mothers Act (R.R. 3110). This bill prioritizes both 
     the physical and economic needs that new mothers must balance 
     upon returning to work. It strengthens federal employment 
     standards that protect working women who need break time and 
     a private space, other than a bathroom, to express breast 
     milk.
       The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) currently requires 
     employers with more than 50 employees to provide a space for 
     mothers to either nurse or express breast milk. Covered 
     employers must also provide reasonable breaks for workers to 
     nurse. An estimated 8.65 million women of childbearing age 
     are excluded from these nursing mother protections because 
     they are not covered by wage and hour standards under the 
     FLSA. Current law also lacks broader enforcement mechanisms 
     for workers denied these protections.
       H.R. 3110 improves current protections by:
       Expanding the number of nursing workers protected by the 
     law.
       Extending the duration of the protections from one year 
     after the child's birth to two years after the employee gives 
     birth or begins providing breast milk for a nursing child.
       Limiting undue hardship exemption to employers with fewer 
     than 25 employees, rather than employers with fewer than 50 
     employees under current law.
       Clarifying that banned workers can seek legal and equitable 
     relief for their employer's failure to provide them with the 
     needed break times and private space to express milk.
       We urge you to stand with working women and their families 
     by voting to pass H.R. 3110.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bailey K. Childers,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____


 Written Statement of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), 
 AFL-CIO Before the United States House of Representatives--September 
                                27, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, and Members 
     of Congress: The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) 
     AFL-CIO submits this letter to the U.S. House of 
     Representatives in full support of the Providing Urgent 
     Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 
     3110).
       AFA represents nearly 50,000 Flight Attendants at 17 
     airlines. Our union has advanced the Flight Attendant 
     profession for 75 years, beating back discrimination and 
     improving wages, benefits, working conditions, and aviation 
     safety, health and security in the aircraft cabin. When the 
     profession began Flight Attendants could not be married or 
     pregnant, among other discriminatory conditions of 
     employment.
       For years, AFA has identified the need for federal 
     protections for nursing Flight Attendants because none exist. 
     In 2010, the Break Time law, which amended the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act (FLSA) to require that employers provide 
     reasonable break time as well as a private place other than a 
     bathroom to express milk provided a monumental step in the 
     right direction. However, millions of nursing mothers were 
     unintentionally left out of this important piece of 
     legislation. The PUMP Act finally rectifies this oversight 
     and includes Flight Attendants.
       In 2021, AFA conducted a survey of almost 400 Flight 
     Attendants to understand their perspective on pumping and 
     expressing breast milk during the course of their work day. 
     An overwhelming majority (86 percent) of Flight Attendant 
     respondents indicated that they faced significant obstacles 
     pumping while on and off duty, as well as in between flights. 
     As a result, 75 percent of Flight Attendant respondents 
     decided to quit pumping and expressing breast milk before 
     they planned to because it was too difficult to find the 
     time, a private location, a clean environment, and access to 
     cold storage for their milk.
       We support the PUMP Act because it will alleviate many of 
     these obstacles for nursing Flight Attendant moms to ensure 
     they have the right, along with the privacy, to pump and 
     express milk. We realize this is a complex issue for Flight 
     Attendants who work in an unconventional workplace. However, 
     we can and should do better to support these nursing mothers 
     in the workplace.
       We urge all members of Congress to vote in support of H.R. 
     3110, the PUMP Act.
           Thank you for your consideration,
                                                    Steve Schembs,
            Director of Government Affairs, Association of Flight 
                                             Attendants-CWA (AFA).

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Madam Speaker, it has now been more than a decade since Congress 
passed critical protections to guarantee nursing workers break time and 
private space to express breast milk at work.
  As we have heard today from Members on both sides of the aisle, these 
protections are essential to protecting the health of nursing workers 
and their

[[Page H5809]]

families, yet nursing workers are continuing to suffer from gaps and 
weaknesses in the Federal law.
  The need to address these gaps is even greater today as our economy 
recovers from COVID-19. Millions of workers, particularly working 
mothers, are looking to re-enter the workforce after being forced out 
of their jobs during the pandemic.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would provide workers with the peace 
of mind that they will not have to choose between returning to work and 
protecting themselves and their babies.
  Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to deliver on our promise to 
help all workers recover from the pandemic, stay safe, and succeed in 
their careers. This legislation will strengthen existing law, improve 
the lives of nursing workers across the country, and help our economy 
get back on its feet.
  We know this program works because the provisions in this bill are 
already law on the Federal level and in several States, without the 
kind of problems that have been suggested that might happen--those have 
not occurred under present law--and without any explosion of lawsuits. 
These provisions are already law, and there have not been lawsuits.
  The substitute offered by the minority does not expand to as many 
mothers as this bill does, and it would actually roll back some 
protections they already have.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. 
Herrera Beutler) for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the PUMP for Nursing 
Mothers Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I rise today as chair of the Subcommittee 
on Workforce Protection; co-founder and co-chair of the Black Maternal 
Health Caucus; as one of the original cosponsors of the bipartisan PUMP 
for Nursing Mothers Act; and as the mother of Jeanelle and Billy.
  The issue before us today is one of equity and fairness. In our 
country, mothers often have to choose between providing for their 
families or nursing their babies.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act ensures that millions of working 
mothers have the access and protections they need to nurse for as long 
as they choose to do so.
  So, why is this Bill so important? As the co-chair of the Black 
Maternal Health Caucus, I know how important it is to break down the 
barriers that hold nursing mothers and their children back from the 
best possible health outcomes.
  Every major medical authority strongly encourages nursing for at 
least the first year of life, as it provides significant health and 
nutritional benefits to both the mother and infant.
  By closing an unintended loophole, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act 
provides protection and support to an additional 9 million working 
mothers who have been forced to choose between nursing and earning a 
paycheck.
  Fundamentally, this bill says that nursing mothers should not be 
punished for making the best choices for their health, and the health 
of their children.
  Especially during this pandemic and America's maternal health crisis, 
I urge each of my colleagues to cast a vote for this critical 
legislation, and I urge the Senate to send it to President Biden's 
desk.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110, 
the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional 
loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act.
  The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for 
hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk 
at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child.
  Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all 
working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection.
  H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections 
to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees 
currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and 
farmworkers.
  H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid 
pumping time.
  The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried 
workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must 
pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is 
also working.
  Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to 
remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women 
with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and 
balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees.
  More than 80% of new mothers in the United States begin 
breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce.
  New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while 
juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are 
exacerbated as a new parent.
  According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and 
Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only 
infants, but also for mothers.
  For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with 
an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, 
heart attacks, retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome 
in adult women.
  For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious 
illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can 
increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 
diabetes, leukemia and SIDS.
  This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose 
between their own health, their infant's health, and their income.
  This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring 
suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean, 
private place and breaks to breast pump at work.
  Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline 
to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for 
breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from 
pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by 
employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between 
breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message 
that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a 
career and motherhood.
  For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the 
``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''

                      [From ACLU, Sept. 30, 2021]

           The PUMP Act Would Protect Nursing Workers Like Me

                         (By Melissa Hodgkins)

       I took Frontier Airlines to court for making it impossible 
     for me to pump breast milk at work. Other workers shouldn't 
     have to fight for their rights like I did.
       When started my career as a flight attendant, I never 
     imagined that I wouldn't be able to continue breastfeeding 
     after I went back to work. I thought that, like most 
     workplaces, my airline would be required by federal law to 
     provide workers a clean, private place and breaks to pump at 
     work. (That's thanks to a provision known as the Break Time 
     for Nursing Mothers law.)
       But it turns out my employer isn't. That's because flight 
     attendants are among the approximately 9 million women who 
     are excluded from the law's protection--along with other 
     transportation workers, teachers, agricultural workers, 
     nurses, and many others. A bill before Congress right now--
     the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act--would fix that. Congress 
     should act now to pass it.
       I first realized the pickle I was in when I became pregnant 
     with my first child and found out that my employer, Frontier 
     Airlines, didn't provide any accommodations for nursing moms. 
     I'd watched other flight attendant moms trying to make it 
     work pumping on the job--and I saw how stressful it was for 
     them.
       They were too fearful of losing their paychecks to ask the 
     airline to accommodate them. When some of my coworkers did 
     ask for breaks and a place to pump, Frontier actually 
     prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them 
     off the job without a paycheck.
       That was when I started to feel like Frontier was making me 
     choose between my career and breastfeeding my baby. I believe 
     breast milk is optimal for babies, and I wanted to give him 
     those health benefits. At the same time, I didn't feel great 
     about pumping in an unsanitary airplane lavatory, and having 
     to scramble to find time to pump between flights, especially 
     given my unpredictable schedule. I was worried I'd lose my 
     job if I had to pump on duty and got reported. Even though I 
     desperately wanted to keep nursing my baby, I just couldn't 
     see how I could make it work. It was a wrenching decision, 
     but I decided I had no choice but to give up breastfeeding in 
     order to go back to work and support my family.
       No woman should have to make that kind of decision. But 
     because of the gap in coverage under the current law, too 
     many of us still do. The ACLU is representing me in a lawsuit 
     arguing that Frontier's treatment of pregnant and 
     breastfeeding pilots and flight attendants is discriminatory. 
     But if the airline had not been exempt from the duty under 
     the existing federal Break Time Law to provide breaks and a 
     clean place to pump, we probably would have never had to take 
     Frontier to court over that in the first place.

[[Page H5810]]

       The PUMP Act would give workers like me the protection we 
     need: a clear requirement that all employers must provide 
     workers who are nursing with the basic accommodations they 
     need. Solutions exist in all industries--including airlines--
     that would allow employees to pump safely. And the bill would 
     strengthen the law in other ways, extending protections from 
     one year to two years, clarifying that it covers situations 
     like adoption or stillbirth, and ensuring that when employers 
     are not in compliance, there is a meaningful way to enforce 
     it.
       The bill has bipartisan support in Congress. Let's make 
     sure it becomes law so that all workers--no matter what 
     industry they work in--have the choice to continue 
     breastfeeding and the ability to get back to work.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part D of House Report 117-137 
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be 
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question.


                  amendment no. 1 offered by ms. ross

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in part D of House Report 117-137.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Education and Labor of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that contains 
     recommendations as appropriate to improve compliance among 
     covered employers, including what is known about employee 
     awareness of the rights afforded to them by the amendments 
     made by this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for my amendment. My 
amendment to the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act would help ensure women 
have sufficient notice of the new protections afforded to them in this 
bill.
  By ensuring that eligible people are provided with sufficient 
informational resources, more women will be able to exercise their 
rights and the likelihood of employer defection will be reduced.
  In many places in this country, including my home State of North 
Carolina, it is easier to take a smoke break than for a mother to take 
a pump break. This is simply unacceptable.
  By passing the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, we can end this 
discrimination against breastfeeding workers and guarantee that no 
mother will have to choose between earning a living and feeding her 
child.
  But a law is only as effective as its enforcement, and we have 
unfortunately witnessed countless occasions where businesses have 
failed to inform workers of their rights. Just in this last year, the 
Department of Labor investigated six businesses in North Carolina for 
violations of breastfeeding rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  My amendment would provide the necessary information to ensure these 
workplace violations do not continue. We owe it to our nursing mothers, 
their families, and our local communities to be vigilant about 
overseeing the implementation of this law.
  This is a gender equality issue, a labor rights issue, and an 
economic justice issue that demands our attention.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the director of 
La Leche and the National WIC Association.

   Written Statement of Diane Thompson, Director of La Leche League 
Alliance for Breastfeeding Education Before the United States House of 
                  Representatives--September 24, 2021

       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Members of 
     the U.S. House of Representatives: La Leche League Alliance 
     for Breastfeeding Education submits this letter to the U.S. 
     House of Representatives in full support of the Providing 
     Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act 
     (H.R. 3110).
       La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding Education (LLL 
     Alliance) is a division of La Leche League International in 
     the United States. While we receive our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
     status as a charitable organization through our association 
     with LLLI, we are a separately incorporated entity.
       Representing over 1000 Leaders spread across 43 states, LLL 
     Alliance provides resources and support for La Leche League 
     Leaders and Area Administrators, as well as information and 
     support for parents.
       La Leche League believes that breastfeeding, with its many 
     important physical and psychological advantages, is best for 
     baby and mother and is the ideal way to initiate good parent-
     child relationships.
       Breastfeeding is crucial to the health of both mothers and 
     babies. It provides protections and health benefits for far 
     longer than the duration of the breastfeeding relationship. 
     Why would the USA not want to encourage and support the 
     feeding of human milk? Some of the advantages include for 
     mothers: lower risk of breast cancer, lower risk of ovarian 
     cancer, lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, and 
     less endometriosis. For children: fewer instances of 
     allergies, eczema, and asthma, fewer childhood cancers, 
     including leukemia and lymphomas, lower risk of type I and II 
     diabetes, fewer instances of Crohn's disease and colitis. See 
     the CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health 
     Organization.
       We have Leaders and parents that are supported who are 
     denied the opportunity to pump at work because of the types 
     of jobs they have. Especially affected are teachers in the K-
     12 system and nurses who are not currently covered. This can 
     have several effects. Mastitis caused by not pumping--these 
     leads to lost days at work and possibly the cessation of 
     breastfeeding. It is disappointing that those individuals who 
     do so much caretaking can be deprived of caretaking for their 
     own children.
       Why would the PUMP act be helpful? Among other reasons it 
     would close the coverage gap. The bill would protect nearly 9 
     million employees excluded from the 2010 Break Time law by 
     extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees 
     as well as other categories of employees currently exempted 
     from protections.
       It would provide employers clarity on when pumping time 
     must be paid and when it may be unpaid. The bill leaves in 
     place existing law protecting many salaried workers from 
     having their pay docked and clarifies that any time spent 
     pumping while the employee is also working, a common 
     occurrence for many employees, must be counted as hours 
     worked.
       This is not a partisan issue--parents of any party benefit.
       La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding Education urges 
     all members of Congress to vote in support because as stated 
     above it closes gaps in the current law. Individuals should 
     not have to choose between going to the bathroom or pumping.
       Thank you for your consideration.
     Diane Thompson,
       Director, La Leche League Alliance for Breastfeeding 
     Education.
                                  ____

                                               September 27, 2021.
     Re National WIC Association Support for the Providing Urgent 
         Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 
         3110).

       On behalf of the National WIC Association (NWA), the 12,000 
     service provider agencies we represent, and the approximately 
     6.3 million women, infants, and young children our members 
     serve, we write to express our strong support for the 
     Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing 
     Mothers Act (H.R. 3110). This legislation is a critical step 
     towards ensuring healthy child development and postpartum 
     health outcomes for working mothers served by WIC.
       Because millions of nursing moms are in the workforce and 
     need protections to pump breastmilk, the PUMP for Nursing 
     Mothers Act is imperative for protecting the nation's 
     breastfeeding women, including WIC participants. The Dietary 
     Guidelines for Americans, based on longstanding 
     recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
     promotes exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and 
     encourages ongoing breastfeeding as complementary foods are 
     introduced. More than half of mothers return to the paid 
     labor force before their children are three months old, with 
     as many as one in four returning within just two weeks of 
     giving birth. Many of these mothers choose to continue 
     breastfeeding well after their return to work to meet the 
     standards reiterated in the Dietary Guidelines--and those 
     employees need to express (or pump) breast milk on a regular 
     schedule.
       The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
     Infants, and Children (WIC) is the nation's leading 
     breastfeeding promotion program, serving about 500,000 
     breastfeeding women with a combination of professional and 
     peer support. Over the last

[[Page H5811]]

     two decades, WIC providers have worked to increase the rates 
     of breastfeeding initiation amongst women participating in 
     the program by 30%. As WIC works to address societal, 
     intergenerational, and historic barriers to breastfeeding, 
     employment protections are vital for the 15.2 million women 
     who live in households that earn less than 185% of the 
     federal poverty line.
       According to the Surgeon General, breastfeeding protects 
     babies from illnesses like ear, skin, and respiratory 
     infections, diarrhea, and vomiting, as well as longer-term 
     conditions such as obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and 
     asthma. Mothers who breastfeed for the recommended duration 
     benefit, from lower risks of breast cancer, heart disease, 
     and other ailments. Higher breastfeeding rates in the United 
     States are associated with lower healthcare costs, with the 
     American Academy of Pediatrics projecting $13 billion in 
     health care savings if 90% of families in the United States 
     exclusively breastfed for six months.
       Research indicates that significant breastfeeding 
     disparities are sustained by both income and race/ethnicity. 
     Lower-income women experience lower breastfeeding rates than 
     middle-higher income women. Furthermore, Black women 
     experience significantly lower breastfeeding rates than White 
     women and Latinas. Barriers to breastfeeding for these 
     vulnerable groups include family and social pressures, a 
     rapid return to work after delivery, lack of facilities to 
     breastfeed or pump in the workplace and in public, and 
     targeted marketing by the infant formula industry. In order 
     to further improve these rates, specifically amongst low-
     income women and women of color, workplace barriers to 
     breastfeeding must be addressed.
       Passed in 2010, the Break Time for Nursing Mothers 
     provision included in the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act, provided critical protections to ensure that 
     employees would have reasonable break time and a private 
     place to pump. Since the law was tied to language in the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act (FLSA), millions of nursing mothers were 
     left without an express statutory right to pump at work. 
     Without these protections, nursing mothers face serious 
     health consequences, including risk of painful illness and 
     infection, diminished milk supply, or inability to continue 
     breastfeeding. Employment is compatible with breastfeeding, 
     and solutions to support nursing mothers exist in all 
     industries. In fact, studies show that supporting nursing 
     mothers leads to lower employer health care costs, 
     absenteeism, and turnover, as well as improved morale, job 
     satisfaction, and productivity. Without protection, nursing 
     employees are likelier to face harassment, reduced wages, and 
     job loss.
       The fact remains that nursing mothers are suffering 
     negative health consequences and being forced to choose 
     between breastfeeding and earning a paycheck. The PUMP for 
     Nursing Mothers Act would strengthen the 2010 Break Time law 
     by:


                        Closing the coverage gap

       The bill would protect nearly 9 million employees excluded 
     from the 2010 Break Time law by extending the law's 
     protections to cover salaried employees as well as other 
     categories of employees currently exempted from protections. 
     Unfortunately, the 2010 Break Time law's placement within the 
     part of FLSA that sets overtime meant that nearly 9 million 
     women--nearly one in four women of childbearing age--were 
     excluded from coverage and have no clear right to break time 
     and space to pump breast milk under federal law. Those left 
     unprotected include teachers, software engineers, and many 
     types of nurses, among numerous others. The categories of 
     employees excluded under FLSA predate the 2010 Break Time 
     law, and were created specifically with overtime exemptions 
     in mind. There is no principled reason why these working 
     mothers should be ineligible to receive break time and space 
     to pump breast milk under federal law. The PUMP for Nursing 
     Mothers Act fixes this harmful error.


Providing employers clarity on when pumping time must be paid and when 
                            it may be unpaid

       The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many 
     salaried workers from having their pay docked, and clarifies 
     that any time spent pumping while the employee is also 
     working, a common occurrence for many employees, must be 
     counted as hours worked. Under the existing Break Time law, 
     breaks do not need to be paid unless they are concurrent with 
     paid breaks. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act clarifies that 
     although the breaks taken under the law are typically unpaid, 
     if hourly workers are not actually relieved from duty while 
     pumping, then that time should be counted as hours worked. 
     The bill also specifies that it does not change existing 
     protections preventing employers from deducting compensation 
     from the salaries of employees who are exempt from receiving 
     overtime.


                 Providing remedies for nursing mothers

       The bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to 
     remedies that are available for other violations of the FLSA, 
     bringing this law into alignment with other requirements that 
     are familiar to employers. Another unintended consequence of 
     the 2010 Break Time law's placement in the FLSA is that an 
     employee who is denied break time and space has no effective 
     remedy for the violation. An employer that violates the 2010 
     Break Time law can be ordered to pay the employee ``the 
     amount of their unpaid minimum wages,'' but violations of the 
     Break Time law typically do not involve unpaid wages. This 
     leaves those who are denied the ability to pump without any 
     meaningful way to enforce their rights, or to address the 
     negative health consequences (such as physical or emotional 
     suffering from infections or early termination of 
     breastfeeding) or financial harms (like unpaid leave or job 
     loss) that they may suffer. In light of the many exemptions 
     and the absence of an effective way to enforce the law's 
     requirements, it is no surprise that sixty percent of 
     breastfeeding employees still did not have access to break 
     time and space after the 2010 Break Time law was in effect. 
     The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act fills the gaps in the 2010 
     Break Time law so all breastfeeding employees receive the 
     full protections of the law.
       The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act represents the next 
     critical step toward bringing federal legislation into 
     alignment with the nutrition and practical needs of our 
     nation's families and their employers. On behalf of WIC's 
     national network of lactation support professionals and the 
     mothers that we serve, we urge your support for this vital 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                     The National WIC Association.

  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment does nothing to address the 
shortcomings of H.R. 3110. We do not need a GAO report to know that 
employers will face numerous challenges in complying with the sweeping 
requirements imposed by H.R. 3110.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act ensures that hourly workers have access 
to time and space to pump breast milk, while exempting certain 
professions and industries with unique operating environments.
  Working mothers deserve proper accommodations to nurse in a clean and 
safe environment without fear of losing their jobs, but failing to 
account for differing workplaces, as H.R. 3110 does, is not the way to 
help women.
  The bill imposes one-size-fits-all treatment on a wide variety of 
businesses and industries without providing feasible compliance 
options.
  H.R. 3110 would also impose new and excessive penalties for minor or 
technical violations of the FLSA's nursing accommodation requirement. 
These unrealistic penalties, combined with compliance challenges 
resulting from the bill's mandate, will lead to a proliferation of 
costly and protracted lawsuits. The result will be delayed 
accommodations for workers.
  A report which acknowledges the complexities and liabilities inherent 
in H.R. 3110 and is released 2 years after the bill takes effect will 
do nothing to mitigate the bill's failures.
  Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise strongly 
in support of the amendment offered by Representative Deborah Ross from 
North Carolina, and I thank her for her leadership in North Carolina 
and here in Congress for working mothers, for infants, for families. We 
need more work-family balance. We need more support for working 
mothers.
  We now know with COVID that many families are not going back to work; 
they are reassessing their values. When you have a child and you want 
to breastfeed, and there is no accommodation, there really is no way 
you can go back to work, so this is pro-business, pro-worker, and pro-
family.
  Her amendment directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, 
to conduct a study on how employers are complying with the PUMP for 
Nursing Mothers Act. Even the best legislation must be monitored.
  I am excited about the opportunity to ensure that employers are 
protecting the rights of nursing mothers. It is pro-family when you 
protect our mothers and our children.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I have 
the right to close.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
my amendment and the bill. Both are essential for our working mothers, 
for

[[Page H5812]]

our families, and for the health of the next generation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we have a unique situation here this morning 
with two Representatives from North Carolina who have totally different 
opinions of this bill and this amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. We 
can do better. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment; it is a day late and a dollar short. We should know what 
these things are in advance and not after the fact. It is what some of 
us might call a run-on amendment. We should have had the GAO study 
earlier to get a better feel for what this bill would do to working 
mothers and to businesses in our country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Strickland

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
2 printed in part D of House Report 117-137.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON RACIAL DISPARITIES.

       The Comptroller General shall--
       (1) conduct a study on what is known about the racial 
     disparities that exist with respect to access to pumping 
     breastmilk in the workplace; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the results of such 
     study containing such recommendations as the Comptroller 
     General determines appropriate to address those disparities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, there are several contributing factors to why nursing 
mothers may choose not to breastfeed and pump milk when returning to 
work. They include inflexible work schedules that make nursing and 
pumping breast milk regularly difficult; the lack of accommodations to 
pump and store milk; and concerns regarding support from supervisors 
and colleagues to pump milk.
  In addition to these factors, women of color and low-income women 
often experience the need to return to work shortly after giving birth, 
in many cases earlier than 12 weeks, and they face additional barriers 
such as racial discrimination and bias whether intentional or not.
  This is why I am proud to offer my amendment to H.R. 3110, the PUMP 
for Nursing Mothers Act, the underlying bill that protects vulnerable 
workers by expanding access to breastfeeding accommodations in the 
workplace.
  This important piece of legislation advances our goals of equity in 
the workplace, and my amendment seeks to strengthen this bill by 
directing the GAO to conduct a study on the racial disparities that 
exist in access to pumping breast milk in the workplace.
  This amendment will also require that GAO submit a report to Congress 
on the results of this study with recommendations to address any 
disparities.
  Employers can begin to address these barriers by offering private 
lactation rooms, or nursing rooms, for both breastfeeding and pumping 
with proper cleaning and storage facilities such as a table, sink, and 
small refrigerator, providing employees with adequate pump breaks, 
allowing flexible work schedules, and guaranteeing paid family leave.
  In fact, we can look to my home State of Washington as a prime 
example of how to lead on this issue. In 2019, the State legislature 
passed and signed into law House Bill 1930, which goes one step further 
than the current Federal law by expanding pump break rights to include 
both salaried and hourly employees, requiring employers to provide a 
private space for pumping that isn't a bathroom, and allowing mothers 
to get pump breaks for up to 2 years after birth. Washington is also 
one of the very few States that provides people with up to 12 weeks 
paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child.
  Yet, despite current Federal law, strong State-level protections such 
as the ones in Washington, and the gains that have been made in this 
area by employers in different sectors across our Nation, racial 
disparities in the workplace still exist for women wishing to pump. My 
amendment aims to close this gap and equip Congress with the data it 
needs to create meaningful solutions.
  We must ensure that women and mothers everywhere and from all 
backgrounds have the support they deserve in the workplace.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
underlying bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3110 exposes a sweeping, one-size-fits-all 
mandate on businesses of all sizes that is unworkable and unreasonable. 
The bill treats all nursing mothers and workplaces as if they are the 
same, despite known differences in employees' needs, industry-specific 
challenges, and employers' abilities to meet the requirements.
  This amendment calls for a Government Accountability Office study on 
racial disparities with respect to access to workplace accommodations 
to pump breast milk and for GAO to submit recommendations to Congress--
after the bill becomes law.
  Madam Speaker, let me be clear, crystal clear. I abhor any type of 
discrimination. There should be no place for discrimination in our 
country, in our employment, or anywhere.
  A study of this kind, however, should have been commissioned before 
the committee debated far-reaching legislation to impose a flawed 
mandate on all businesses in the United States. Instead, H.R. 3110 was 
rushed to a committee markup within 2 weeks of introduction. Democrats 
often put the cart before the horse, and this amendment does nothing to 
remedy the shortcomings of this legislation.
  Nursing women are not a monolith. They have unique needs that this 
legislation ignores. H.R. 3110 is reductive and, working women deserve 
better.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
A Better Balance.

                                               September 23, 2021.
     Re The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).

       Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write 
     to express our strong support for the PUMP for Nursing 
     Mothers Act (``The PUMP Act''; H.R. 3110) because no one in 
     this country should have to choose between feeding their baby 
     and earning an income for their family. The PUMP Act will 
     mean millions of workers, excluded under current law, will 
     have adequate break time and space to express milk at work. 
     The PUMP Act will further the health of our nation's parents, 
     babies, and economy. Affording protections to workers so they 
     can pump milk to feed this country's children should be a 
     priority for every member of Congress. We urge every member 
     to support this bipartisan legislation and vote yes on the 
     PUMP Act.
       A Better Balance is a national legal advocacy organization, 
     using the power of the law to advance justice for workers, so 
     they can care for themselves and their loved ones without 
     risking their economic security. We founded A Better Balance 
     fifteen years ago because we recognized that a lack of fair 
     and supportive work-family laws and policies, or more 
     broadly, a ``care crisis'' was harming a majority of workers, 
     particularly women, especially Black and Latina women, in 
     low-

[[Page H5813]]

     wage jobs. In the case of nursing parents, too often, parents 
     return to work without the supports they need to continue 
     expressing milk at work and are forced to choose between 
     giving up breastfeeding and maintaining their employment.
       As I shared with the House Education and Labor Committee in 
     my March 2021 testimony:
       We hear over and over again on A Better Balance's free 
     legal helpline, new mothers returning to the workplace face 
     unfair treatment because their employers refuse to provide 
     them with the time and space needed to express breast milk, 
     forcing them to choose between a paycheck and providing 
     breast milk for their child. Some workers reduce their 
     schedules, are terminated, or are forced out of the 
     workplace, foregoing vital income and familial economic 
     security because their workplaces are so hostile to their 
     need to express milk. Others simply stop breastfeeding 
     altogether, sometimes even before entering the workplace, 
     perceiving (typically correctly) the challenges as 
     insurmountable. Too many who continue in their jobs struggle 
     with harassment, health repercussions, and dwindling milk 
     supply to feed their babies. These challenges face many new 
     working parents, but disproportionately low-wage working 
     mothers of color. These harsh workplace conditions for 
     breastfeeding parents represent a fundamental unfairness and 
     inequity in our legal system--and reinforce the stereotype 
     that motherhood and employment are irreconcilable.
       One worker who recently called A Better Balance's helpline, 
     Sarah, is a certified medication assistant at a large long-
     term care facility in Kansas. Despite having thousands of 
     employees, her employer disparaged her and put up roadblock 
     after roadblock when she needed to pump at work, telling her 
     once ``I gave my baby the bottle--I couldn't imagine having a 
     baby attached to me.'' After her supervisor berated her for 
     needing to pump, and she attempted to find a space in the 
     office to pump to no avail because a co-worker walked in, 
     told her to ``hurry up'', and refused to leave the room, 
     Sarah resorted to pumping in her car just once a day. Even 
     then, her supervisor came to the parking lot to try and stop 
     her from pumping. Because she was only allowed to pump once a 
     day, she frequently became engorged and suffered painful 
     clogged milk ducts. Meanwhile, at least of six Sarah's co-
     workers took smoke breaks multiple times a day without 
     comment or issue. The contrast is startling and deeply 
     upsetting.
       Sarah is not alone in her struggle. I also shared Izabel's 
     story with the committee:
       Izabel, a dental assistant in North Carolina, was fired 
     shortly after submitting a doctor's note requesting three 15-
     minute pumping breaks during her shift. Prior to submitting 
     the note, she had requested pumping breaks and her employer 
     told her she could only pump once per day during her lunch 
     break--which did not medically meet her breastfeeding needs--
     even though there were roughly three other dental assistants 
     working in the office who could have helped her with her job 
     duties while she took breaks. Although likely covered by the 
     2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act, because of the law's 
     limited enforcement, Izabel's ability to get her job back or 
     be made whole were extremely limited.


 Beastfeeding Has Myriad Benefits for Parents & Babies But, As We Know 
  Firsthand, Too Many Workplaces Lack Adequate Protections for Workers

       Breastfeeding is increasingly common among American 
     parents. According to a recent study by the United States 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey, more than 
     84 percent of infants born in 2017 were breastfed for at 
     least some amount of time. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 
     Americans and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend 
     exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, and continuing 
     breastfeeding while introducing complementary foods until a 
     baby is 12 months old or older. At the same time, more than 
     half of working parents return to their jobs before their 
     babies are three months old; twenty-five percent of workers 
     return within just two weeks of giving birth. This means that 
     working parents who wish to continue breastfeeding will need 
     to pump milk on a regular basis upon returning to work in 
     order to continue feeding their children and to avoid serious 
     health consequences. However, many parents returning to work 
     find it incredibly challenging to pump because they are not 
     provided with adequate break time or space to do so. This may 
     explain why, although 84 percent of infants born in 2017 
     breastfed for some period of time, only slightly more than 58 
     percent were still breastfeeding at six months.
       The health benefits of breastfeeding are numerous. As I 
     outlined in my testimony:
       Research shows that breastfeeding has substantial health 
     benefits for both mothers and babies. Breastfeeding protects 
     babies from acute illnesses, such as infections and diarrhea, 
     which can be serious especially in very young and vulnerable 
     babies like those born preterm, as well as from longer-term 
     conditions like childhood obesity and asthma. Likewise, as 
     Nikia Sankofa, the Executive Director of the U.S. 
     Breastfeeding Committee, made clear in testimony before the 
     House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 
     and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in January 
     2020, the health benefits for mothers who breastfeed are 
     significant, and include lower risk of breast cancer and 
     heart disease. Medical consensus urges breastfeeding infants 
     for at least their first year of life in order to achieve 
     these health benefits.


    Current Federal Law Leaves Behind Millions of Lactating Workers

       In 2010, Congress passed the Break Time for Nursing Mothers 
     Act as part of the Affordable Care Act. The law amended 
     section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     207) and affords workers ``reasonable break time for an 
     employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 
     year after the child's birth each time such employee has need 
     to express the milk'' and ``a place, other than a bathroom, 
     that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from 
     coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to 
     express breast milk.''
       While groundbreaking, the 2010 law has three critical 
     problems: 1) it excludes millions of workers; 2) it has 
     inadequate remedies for employees whose rights have been 
     violated; and 3) it lacks clarity around breaks and 
     compensation.
       1. Current law excludes millions of nursing parents. The 
     2010 law is housed in the overtime provisions of the Fair 
     Labor Standard Act (``FLSA'') which means that those workers 
     exempted from overtime--nearly nine million women of 
     childbearing age--are also excluded from the law's 
     protections. These millions of workers, including 
     transportation workers, executive, administrative and 
     professional workers, and many others, have no federal right 
     requiring their employer to provide them break time and space 
     to express breast milk. As I emphasized in my testimony, 
     ``There is no principled reason why these employees should be 
     denied the law's protections: each industry is fully capable 
     of standard or innovative solutions to ensure their employees 
     do not have to choose between breastfeeding and their jobs. . 
     . The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on 
     Women's Health maintains an extensive and detailed website 
     describing how various industries, such as restaurant and 
     retail, can provide lactation break time and space, including 
     video testimonials, employer best practices examples, and 
     other resources. In 2021, there is simply no excuse not to 
     meet the needs of breastfeeding workers.''
       2. Current law has inadequate remedies for workers who 
     experienced violations. Given the current law's placement in 
     the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the remedy for 
     violations of the Nursing Mothers law is misaligned. 
     Currently, the available remedy is to pay a worker any 
     overtime owed to them. As I explained to the Education and 
     Labor Committee in March,
       ``Such a remedy makes sense in the context of overtime: an 
     employee who works forty-five hours in a week without 
     overtime pay should be compensated with the missing payment 
     to be made whole. For a breastfeeding worker who has been 
     denied time and space to pump, however, this remedy is 
     nonsensical. A breastfeeding worker who is told she cannot 
     clock out to pump has been denied an unpaid break. Therefore, 
     she has no entitlement to payment and the law's contemplated 
     remedy--compensation for wages--is meaningless to her . . . 
     These weak enforcement mechanisms are antithetical to the 
     goal of ensuring that breastfeeding workers can get the 
     timely accommodations they need to continue breastfeeding and 
     keep their jobs''
       3. Current law lacks clarity regarding pumping breaks and 
     compensation. Under current law, pumping breaks that are not 
     taken during a paid break do not need to be paid. However, 
     often, workers who are pumping may clock out but will still 
     take phone calls, emails, or other work requests while 
     pumping, and are then denied compensation for their time 
     worked while pumping. Because the language in the law says 
     that breaks may be uncompensated, confusion persists and 
     violations can occur when employers continue to require 
     employees to work while taking an unpaid pumping break.


The PUMP Act Would Close Gaps in the Law, Provide Appropriate Remedies 
   for Employees, and Give Clarity Around Compensation. Alternative 
                 Proposals Fall Well Short of This Goal

       The PUMP Act will close the gaps in current law and extend 
     the 2010 law's protections to nearly nine million employees 
     who are currently uncovered, including nurses, teachers, and 
     software engineers. Corporate leadership, coupled with 
     employees, advocates, and government agencies, have already 
     devised innovative, affordable, and flexible solutions for 
     nearly every workplace environment. In addition, the 
     Committee on Education & Labor also added language at the 
     bill markup requiring the U.S. Department of Labor to work 
     with the Department of Health and Human Services to build out 
     guidance for employers.
       The legislation will also provide employers additional 
     clarity as to when break time can be unpaid, and will provide 
     remedies that are already available for other FLSA violations 
     if a worker's rights are violated. At the Education & Labor 
     Committee mark-up of the bill, the Committee also added 
     language ensuring fairness for employers by requiring 
     employees to inform their employers about inadequate space to 
     express breast milk 10 days before they file suit for 
     violating the requirement. The PUMP Act will benefit workers 
     and business alike, as there are well-recognized bottom-line 
     benefits for employers

[[Page H5814]]

     in providing break time and space for lactating employees, 
     such as reduced absenteeism, lower healthcare costs, and 
     greater recruitment and retention. This is why the U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation.
       At the Committee markup, the minority introduced an 
     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, and subsequently, a 
     bill which mirrored that substitute amendment. Now, there is 
     an attempt to include this language again as a substitute 
     amendment to this bill. Although encouraging to see members 
     voice support for break time and space, this substitute 
     amendment does not afford the protections that breastfeeding 
     parents need because it does not address the two main 
     problems that the PUMP Act is addressing. The alternative 
     bill continues to exclude millions of workers from break time 
     and space protections and continues to leave workers with no 
     meaningful remedies. Supporting the alternative bill and not 
     the PUMP Act is hollow at best and offensive to working 
     parents who need real protections.
       The PUMP Act will finally close the gaps in the law that 
     have left too many working parents without the ability to 
     pump at work and thrust into the painful position of choosing 
     between breastfeeding and their job. Congress has the 
     opportunity to right a fundamental wrong and pass the PUMP 
     Act. We urge you to support nursing parents in a meaningful 
     way and pass the PUMP Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dina Bakst,

                                        Co-Founder & Co-President,
                                                 A Better Balance.

  Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this important bill.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
Representative Strickland from Washington. It is sensitive, important, 
and strengthens the bill. It directs the Comptroller General to conduct 
a study on racial disparities in breastfeeding and submit 
recommendations to Congress that address those disparities.
  As a member of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, we are studying 
disparities in this caucus on healthcare and the challenges that some 
women face.
  Breastfeeding contains many health benefits for children and for 
their mothers and should be accessible to all women no matter what 
their race, and we should study any disparity and try to strengthen 
access and availability.
  This is an excellent amendment, and I support the gentlewoman for her 
work and sensitivity.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment that benefits all of us regardless 
of our political affiliation. This is a bipartisan bill, it deserves 
our support as well as the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate again: I have no tolerance 
whatsoever for any type of discrimination in the workplace or anyplace 
else. However, if we are going to do a study about potential 
discrimination, it should be done before a bill is drafted, introduced, 
and voted on.
  This amendment does not improve the very bad underlying bill, H.R. 
3110. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, 
vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 716, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Strickland).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Van Duyne moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3110 to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Van Duyne is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 5. EXEMPTIONS.

       The amendments made by this Act shall not apply with 
     respect to employees described under subsection (a)(6) and 
     under paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of section 
     13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200, 
nays 224, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               YEAS--200

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--224

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Burchett
     Bush
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Greene (GA)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.

[[Page H5815]]


     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Allen
     Brady
     Bustos
     DesJarlais
     Lamborn
     Pence
     Sherrill

                              {time}  1059

  Messrs. COSTA, DOGGETT, Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ, Mr. GARCIA of Illinois, 
Ms. CHU, Messrs. CASTEN, GOSAR, O'HALLERAN, DELGADO, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. 
BURCHETT, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. SWALWELL and TORRES of New York 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LUCAS, WEBSTER of Florida, and Mrs. BOEBERT changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Adams (Brown)
     Bowman (Khanna)
     Castro (TX) (Escobar)
     Cawthorn (McHenry)
     Cicilline (Pingree)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Cuellar (Costa)
     DeFazio (Brown)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Garbarino (Jacobs (NY))
     Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Herrera Beutler)
     Harshbarger (Kustoff)
     Hartzler (Bucshon)
     Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
     Huffman (Stanton)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Jones (Jacobs (CA))
     Kahele (Case)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (NV) (Clark (MA))
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lynch (Trahan)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Nehls (Fallon)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Perlmutter (Neguse)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Joyce (PA))
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Stewart (Crawford)
     Suozzi (Panetta)
     Timmons
     (Reschenthaler)
     Vela (Correa)
     Waltz (Diaz-Balart)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Williams (GA) (Jacobs (CA))
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 276, 
nays 149, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               YEAS--276

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bush
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Feenstra
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Malliotakis
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                               NAYS--149

     Aderholt
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClain
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Allen
     Brady
     Bustos
     Lamborn
     Pence
     Sherrill

                              {time}  1134

  Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FEENSTRA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I was attending to an urgent matter in my 
district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 330 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 331.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Adams (Brown)
     Bowman (Khanna)
     Castro (TX) (Escobar)
     Cawthorn (McHenry)
     Cicilline (Pingree)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Cuellar (Costa)
     DeFazio (Brown)
     DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Garbarino (Jacobs (NY))
     Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Herrera Beutler)
     Harshbarger (Kustoff)

[[Page H5816]]


     Hartzler (Bucshon)
     Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
     Huffman (Stanton)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Jones (Jacobs (CA))
     Kahele (Case)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (NV) (Clark (MA))
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lynch (Trahan)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Nehls (Fallon)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Perlmutter (Neguse)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Joyce (PA))
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Stewart (Crawford)
     Suozzi (Panetta)
     Timmons
     (Reschenthaler)
     Vela (Correa)
     Velazquez (Jeffries)
     Waltz (Diaz-Balart)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Williams (GA) (Jacobs (CA))
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
       
       

                          ____________________